5/31/2006 05:11:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Democratic Party has filed a complaint against Gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil, because his website did not bear a "Paid for by..." on it. This may seem like a piddly complaint, but this law is designed to prevent the sort of anonymous attacks that we saw here in the CD 8 race last week. It also exists so that campaigns must take responsibility for their communications.
It is sort of funny, campaigns know to put "Paid for by..." on everything, and have done that for years, decades. Who was the bonehead who forgot? What campaign will he be working next week?
Since this complaint goes to Jan Brewer rather than the considerably more non-partisan Clean Elections Commission, anyone taking bets on whether any action will be taken? Not that I would ever allege that our Secretary of State would act in any way except above petty partisanship.|W|P|114912161999256939|W|P|Back Atcha...|W|Pemail@example.com/31/2006 07:08:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Tedski I am glad you are covering these important infractions. Since Len’s mistake was serious enough to write about maybe both he and Janet should both be disqualified from the ballot in the spirit of bipartisanship. I think it would be great if Jan and the CCEC take these errors as seriously as happened with David Burnell Smith.
Hey, wouldn’t that leave Don (now has supporters) still in the race?5/31/2006 07:39:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Naw...I just won't mention that one because I am a cynical, partisan bastard.6/01/2006 07:24:00 AM|W|P|Geo|W|P|It's also not relevant, either.
Janet demonstrably had public funds in her account that made her web site entirely legal.
Munsil demonstrably did not have the appropriate text on his web site, making his infraction clearly illegal.
So, yes: disqualify everyone who campaigns illegally. So far, that appears to be Munsil, only.
Much as I'm sure that reality upsets Republican partisans like phx kid. But as we all know, reality has a well-known liberal bias...6/01/2006 08:12:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Geo I am not upset.
On the topic of reality Janet is the one under investigation by the CCEC.6/01/2006 09:38:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|I gotta go with phx kid on this one (right up until the disqualification from the ballot. you had me then you lost me kid).
Janet's alleged violation is much more serious than Lenny's. That web site helped her take in a lot of $5 contributions immediately. I should know. I downloaded the form that first day. So, if she had enough funds (and that has yet to be determined geo) to pay for that site (w/ video!!) before she filed her paperwork, she might be ok. But if not (so far from what I've heard she would have had to have a hell of a discount to have been able to pay for it w/ what she had on hand), I wonder what campaign Janet's bonehead will be working for next week?
Oh, and P.S., the Clean Elections Commission sent parts of the complaint over to the Secretary of State's office to investigate. So she's not out of the woods even if the considerably more non-partisan commission clears her.
Stay tuned!6/01/2006 10:11:00 AM|W|P|Mike2482|W|P|Whoa, whoa, Geo. Janet did not "demonstrably had (have) public funds in
her account that made her web site entirely legal."
She did not even set up an exploratory committee, so she didn't even
have seed money. And she did not have public funds because she hadn't
even begun to collect the $5 contributions on the day she filed her
candidate papers.6/01/2006 12:08:00 PM|W|P|Tom Prezelski|W|P|Now, if only the Tucson sign code enforcers will get on Mr. Munsil for his numerous illegally placed signs on the East Side all would be good.
You wouldn't know anything about that, would you Ted?6/01/2006 03:05:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Hell...I would want to face Munsil if I were a Democrat. Don't disqualify what might be the most extremist candidate I have seen in years for a major state-wide office.6/01/2006 08:17:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Seed money can come from Janet herself you know. She can write herself a check...which I know everyone thinks would be weird but Janet DOES make enough annually to have the funds on hand.
As for the registration of her campaign regarding state statutes:
16-903.A states that she would have to have her campaign committee registered before she spent any money. So for instanceif on March 1 she filed her statement of organization and the website was up on March 2 at 12:01 AM, she would be okay since she could spend money.
16-941.A.2 lets the Governor donate $1,000 towards her own campaign when filing clean as a state wide candidate. The website probably did not cost more then $1,000 for reservation of the domain, server space, and code written.6/01/2006 09:34:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|kralmajales
Don't disqualify what might be the most extremist candidate I have seen in years for a major state-wide office
When exactly did Fife Symington last appear on the ballot anyway?
The scary thing about it is that extremists don't necessarily always lose.
And let's be honest here-- Republicans have nothing to run on against Janet. Their stale old 'tax cuts are the answer to every problem that has ever existed' rhetoric has about worn itself out, so lacking anything substantive, they have grabbed this as their last chance.
As far as the Munsil issue is concerned, I suspect that Ted's title pretty much sums it up; those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.6/14/2006 09:43:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|6/14/2006 09:45:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|6/14/2006 09:48:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|6/14/2006 09:50:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|5/31/2006 04:33:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The National Journal has now rated the Pederson - Kyl race as the ninth "hottest" in the country, ahead of the heavily contested open seat in Maryland. This is a three point jump from the previous rating.
In a related story, former Avondale Mayor Ronald Drake is still listed as "bubbling under" on the Hot 200 Album chart.
In a New York Times profile of the race to replace Sen. Bill Frist (#11 on the National Journal list), both the contests in Tennessee and Arizona are mentioned as possible pickups for Democrats in places that one wouldn't normally expect.|W|P|114911956014912692|W|P|Pederson - Kyl Race Tightens, at Least in the Eyes of National Journal|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/31/2006 07:19:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Wow! Is 9th place all he got? For the $2,000,000 that he gave to his campaign on 3-31-06 I would have thought that he would come in better than 9th place. I guess 2 million dollars does not buy as much as it used to. Inflation and all that. Hopefully his money will go as far as George Soros’ did in 2004.
No, I don’t mind money in politics. In fact I am pretty sure there will be plenty spent on Kyl’s side before all this is over.5/31/2006 07:38:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Has George Soros given to Pederson? I was just trying to figure out why you keep bringing him up.5/31/2006 07:58:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|According to a CNN (online) article dated 12-26-03 George Soros “pledged $12.5 million to ensure “we can write off the Bush doctrine””
I do not know if Soros actually spent that amount. Since Bush was still able to win in 2004 I draw the conclusion that lots of money does not necessarily determine the outcome of a race.
So, no Soros may have not given to Pederson. He is just a great example of someone who spent a lot to loose.5/31/2006 08:19:00 PM|W|P|Sandy in Prescott|W|P|I have seen a monumental change in the Pederson campaign in the past month or so. I am actually seeing bumperstickers, their ads and I've gotten called twice from the campaign.6/01/2006 06:12:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|I wondered why everyone was giving Pederson and his campaign grief back in March. It was far too early then to start ads and what most of us see as a "public" campaign. Frankly, it is still a bit early...we are going to see a whole lot more...from both sides.6/01/2006 07:07:00 AM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|Pederson has my vote, but I will feel better about his prospects when he starts talking more about why to vote for him and not against Kyl. Realizing that part of any challenger's task is to drive up the incumbent's negatives, I still don't hear much about what "Senator Pederson's" values are and what his priorities would be. He has the same challenge Jon Corzine successfully confronted in New Jersey, which is coming across as more than simply a rich dilettante who wants a Senate seat to add to his trophies.
Pederson also needs to be ready to take on one of the most relentless campaigners in this state in Jon Kyl. Simply tying Kyl to Bush or labelling him as to the left of McCain won't be enough to beat him. The case needs to be made that Kyl's voting record is antithetical to the interests of our state. That is harder to do after the TIME article lauding Kyl as one of the ten best senators in the country because he can make the case that such a distinction helps him to get us our fair share in the halls of power.
I think Pederson needs to dissect Kyl's voting record and show how his ultra-right record has hurt children, working and middle class families, the elderly, etc. This race can be won on domestic issues and reassuring the voters that Pederson has a backbone when it comes to terrorism and national security. Pederson has already shown balance on immigration and needs to come across consistently as caring, results-oriented and non-ideological in contrast to Kyl.6/01/2006 07:20:00 AM|W|P|Geo|W|P|Pederson used his own money to seed the campaign to get an earlier start and build his name recognition.
He went from being a virtual unknown outside of AZ to being the challenger in the 9th hottest senate race in the nation. I'd say it was money well spent.
Though, I know a lot of Republican partisans like phx kid wish it weren't so. But frankly, the cloying smell of desperation wafting off of his comment above is a heady aroma, indeed.
It smells like trouble for Kyl. :)6/01/2006 08:37:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|desperation? Geo I am thrilled to see Pederson pour his personal funds into a race that he is going to loose. He did use his wealth as seed money and according to an article in the East Valley Trib. Dated May 24, 06 he also added another 1.2 mil. on May 8 to keep his campaign going.
Kyl enjoys near universal support within his party and in a state that is Rep/Dem by 40% to 34% that is not a bad thing. That means Pederson needs about 61% of independents to vote for him, provided they vote in the same percentages as partisan voters. Good luck.6/01/2006 09:32:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Much as I hate to say it, I have to agree with Phx Kid on this one.
It's nice Pederson is willing to pump enough money in to make Kyl have to work for it, but unless there is a _huge_ revolt among independent voters it's hard to see Pederson winning. He's not going to get much, if any crossover support from registered Republicans (in fact, Kyl may get more crossover support from crossover Democrats, based upon his incumbant advantage).6/01/2006 11:42:00 AM|W|P|Jeneiene Schaffer|W|P|I'm not a political 'wonk' but I know why I changed my democrat affiliation to independent. In my opinion, Pederson should stick to his 'independent' thinking and resist the temptation that so many dems have these days of trying to win by beoming a 'Bush-lite'. He can easily trounce Kyl on his environmental record, and the enviro issues card is being played more and more these days quite successfully.6/01/2006 12:15:00 PM|W|P|Tom Prezelski|W|P|Yeah, I can see why you left the Democratic party. We are so notoriously weak on environmental issues. Only "independents" care about the environment, or anything else for that matter.
In fact, every morning I wake up and ask myself "just how will I sell out to the Republicans today?"
Sorry, I just tire of this pretentious crap.6/01/2006 04:26:00 PM|W|P|Jeneiene Schaffer|W|P|With all due respect, Ted, only you made the 'pretentious' assumption that I think Dems are weak on enviro issues. The last statement on my previous comment was only a suggestion into the web universe to hopefully reach those near Pederson and to maybe make a difference for his campaign.
There are very real and very serious reasons why independents are tired of 'pretentious' dems. If folks like you would get over yourselves and your inflated egos you might be able to see these reasons with a clearer vision and heart.6/01/2006 08:13:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Jeneiene -
Check the name, I didn't make the comment.6/01/2006 09:27:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Rex Scott:
Pederson has said what he is for.
He has made it clear that not only is he in favor of not doing things the way they have been done in Washington (for decades, in the case of Kyl), but his slogan 'He'll be nobody's Senator but ours' is a reminder that frankly he's too rich to be bought, and that is a good thing to be in this year of Abramoff and of Congressmen being investigated and sent to prison for outright bribery. He can say he will bring 'common sense' to Washington because he, unlike his opponent, will be able to walk into the Senate without chamber any IOU's in his briefcase.
He has made it clear that he is for working to make prescription drug prices affordable.
He put out a position statement on immigration that Jon Kyl essentially expropriated for his own ads after his own immigration bill failed in the Senate.
If you don't consider that Pederson is for anything, maybe it's because you haven't been paying enough attention to what he has said that he is for.6/01/2006 11:50:00 PM|W|P|Sandy in Prescott|W|P|Just keep telling yourself that PhxKid and sirocco . Just keep repeating it to yourself in the mirror.
The fact is that most people out there don't give one shit that Jim is spending millions. Political people care about it because they watch politics. Most people look at it and go "oh well, he has it, why not spend it?" or "at least he can't be bought"
They don't look at it like a biollionare buying a race. People are so tired of the Republicans in washington and all they have failed to deliver on in 6 years that its time for a change.6/02/2006 05:28:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Hey, Sandy, don't look at me ... I hope you're entirely right and Pederson wins. I just don't really think it will happen.
Jeneiene, I don't know you at all, and I don't know anything about your past history or Tom's, Ted's, anyone elses, but you sure do come across as "holier-than-thou" to me.6/02/2006 06:34:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Sandy I never said the voters would care about how much money Pederson is spending. You are right, it will not be the central issue.
“People are so tired of the Republicans” Funny thing “Republicans” is not running for office and that name will not directly appear on the ballot as a candidate. The name Jon Kyl will and he enjoys strong support from the voters in his party, which outnumber the other party in Arizona. We’ll see in November. Oh and you should not project your habit of talking to your reflection onto others.
I don’t believe Pederson will win but if he does I bet he gets back there and says to himself “I paid $3.2 million for this?”6/02/2006 09:28:00 PM|W|P|DRP|W|P|Kyl has got to go. Not sure how good JP would be, but Kyl is bad for AZ and a disaster for the public-interest.6/02/2006 10:20:00 PM|W|P|Publius|W|P|Kyl stood up and said he would not vote for S. 2611 because it would require the U.S. government to ask Mexico’s permission to build any security fences along the border. His vote against stupidity should allow him to stay on as Senator.5/30/2006 05:46:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| I've got a couple of not necessarily related, and possibly contradictory thoughts on the whole William Jefferson thing.
If these allegations turn out to be true, Jefferson should be thrown out of Congress and serve some serious time. This goes without saying, but I'm saying it anyway because some conservative wag who posts here will allege I'm excusing his behavior either because he's a Democrat, or African-American or maybe he's a Revs fan.
The snide, cynical bastard inside of me thinks this, however: at least this was bare, naked corruption. Vichi, as my Sonoran relatives say. He didn't ask for the donation to go to a PAC that pays his wife's six-figure salary. This wasn't money from gambling interests or Pacific Rim slave runners funnelled to a church. There was no wink and nod gift to a phony charity. This was old fashioned CREEP/Tamany Hall/Federal Ring style briefcase-full-of-money bribery. There is something twistedly honest about that.
I've been watching with great amusement the handwringing from Republican congressmen about the raid on Jefferson's office. Heck, Darrell Issa casually mentioned impeaching Alberto Gonzales over this. Where was this outrage when Gonzales claimed the right to wiretap any citizen without a warrant? I guess its a bit different when it looks like your office could be searched.
Hey, at least the FBI asked for a warrant for Jefferson's office.|W|P|114903753152620558|W|P|Some Thoughts On Rep. William Jefferson|W|Pemail@example.com/30/2006 10:37:00 PM|W|P|union guy|W|P|As a progressive Democrat, I think Nancy Pelosi should demand Jefferson's resignation. He had money stuffed in his freezer and is on tape taking the money.
Democrats must demand that their members in Congress be above reproach. Jefferson should resign.5/31/2006 01:59:00 AM|W|P|cpmaz|W|P|Yeah, there is something refreshingly old-fashioned about straight-up bribe solicitation and receiving. Having said that, if Rep. Jefferson is guilty every Dem (including me) should call for his ouster from office.
Anything less from would be hypocritical given how loudly we have denounced Delay, Cunningham, Ney, and the Abramhoff gang.
We need to clean out all the dirty members of Congress, not just the dirty Repubs.
Expecting that all Dems in Congress be above reproach is a nice but unrealistic ideal; better to expect that we hold our own as accountable for their actions as we do the Reps.5/31/2006 02:06:00 AM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|He does need to go.
The problem with the FBI raid is that it erodes the whole separation of powers. The Constitution makes it very clear that the executive branch does not have primacy over the legislative branch. Hence Congress has its own rules and enforcement mechanisms. They have failed in the past (and I've made no bones about that) but it is still clearly the responsibility of Congress to police Congress.
That is not to say that congressmen are above the law. The FBI (an extension of the executive branch) can still investigate a congressman, and the $90 K (a whole new meaning to 'cold, hard cash') is valid evidence because his home is not where he conducts his official business. His office, in contrast, is. And they don't need it to get a conviction, they got Duke Cunningham and Dan Rostenkowski without searching their offices.
But ultimately if any part of the executive branch is given the authority to police Congress, then that moves us in the direction of a dictatorship (especially should someone truly evil and unscrupulous become President some day). And that is a much more dangerous to the future of the Republic than any single corrupt congressman. And I say that even though my own congressman joins Jefferson on the
"http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/renzi.php">'13 most ethically challenged congressmen' list (yes, I live in Richmond Ricky's district).5/31/2006 02:09:00 AM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Whoops, that links should be:
13 most ethically challenged congressmen.5/31/2006 04:55:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|It's reached the point where Jefferson has to go, guilty or not. The longer he hangs around, teh longer he drags this out, the worse it's going to be.
He should do the honorable thing, and resign. Of course, those who accept bribes aren't generally those inclined to do the honorable thing.6/02/2006 10:25:00 PM|W|P|Publius|W|P|But remember, there were Democrats in the “Abramoff gang” as well.
But, this guy looks about as guilty as can be with money in the freezer and being caught on tape. Of course Jefferson can always use the Marion Barry defense after being caught on video smoking crack, “The Bitch set me up.”5/29/2006 07:00:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In honor of Memorial Day, instead of the usual snarky siliness of this blog, I invite you to read the stories of three Congressional Medal of Honor winners. Most of us, being Arizonans, know the tragic story of Corporal Ira Hayes, but it is always worth another look.
One you may not know is the story of Sgt. William Carney, the first African-American recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor. For some reason, his compelling story was ignored by the writers of the otherwise excellent movie Glory.
The third one is the story of Staff Sergeant Maynard "Snuffy" Smith. He was the first enlisted man in what was then known as the Army Air Force to be awarded the Medal of Honor. His story was first told by a young Stars and Stripes reporter by the name of Andy Rooney. Most of the time, we read about these heroes and its easy to forget that they are just normal folks called on to do remarkable things, Smith's often amusing story shows this. For those who don't know, Smith had to put out a fire on his bomber while it was in flight with, well, lets just say the only liquid available.|W|P|114891291210956245|W|P|Memorial Day|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/30/2006 11:28:00 AM|W|P|Rob F|W|P|I admire Ira Hayes. His story is tragic and sobering. But I don't think he won the Medal of Honor. Sorry to quibble. And when, oh when, are we going to see a post about your own run for the legislature?5/30/2006 12:05:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|You're right. I must be one of many confused, since the webmasters that run the Medal of Honor site have a special page about him and begin it with the words, "Ira Hayes was an Iwo Jima Hero though not a recipient of the Medal of Honor"
Oh well. The Medal of Honor page about Hayes is here:
http://www.medalofhonor.com/IraHayesMarine.htm5/30/2006 01:35:00 PM|W|P|Tom Prezelski|W|P|Isn't Glory the movie that claims that the 54th was destroyed at Fort Wagoner, totally missing the heroic action of Captain Luis Emilio in rallying the survivors?
Oh well, the Latino man don't get credit por nada.5/27/2006 08:08:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Terry Goddard filed his petition signatures this week, and also turned his his "$5 Forms" for Clean Elections qualification. Many of the Clean Elections contributions came from members of the SEIU, newly established in this state and flexing its political muscle.
Word has come through the transom (Radio Free Europe...) that his opponent, Bill Montgomery, has been having trouble collecting his "fives." The talk is that gubernatorial hopeful Len Munsil, whose organization has already been praised for how quickly it got signatures and raised money, has pledged to help Montgomery.
CORRECTION: I added the words "members of" to the SEIU paragraph to avoid insinuating that the SEIU itself plowed money into Goddard's campaign. One poster noted this would be illegal, but didn't see that Munsil's campaign could be accused of the same thing if my post was read that literally.|W|P|114878627620066465|W|P|Goddard Is In; Montgomery Struggles?|W|Pemail@example.com/27/2006 11:10:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Tedski I know this story is not about your party but Montgomery endorsed Munsil back on April 24th. You don’t need a transom to figure out what is going on here.
Since Goddard and Montgomery are both clean elections they will be limited to spending the same amount. So once Bill gets his $5 forms in Goddard looses the advantage in fundraising potential that an incumbent like him would normally have.
“Many of the Clean Elections contributions came from the SEIU” Someone should let the CCEC know about this since only individuals are suppose to donate the $5.5/28/2006 02:36:00 AM|W|P|Tom-AZ|W|P|sigh ... yes and I guess the CCEC should be told that the religious right got Munsil his $5 forms... "since only individuals are supposed to donate the $5s"
don't be so dense5/28/2006 06:29:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Of course that's what I meant...I guess the Republicans all of a sudden like the Clean Elections Commission these days.5/28/2006 06:59:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|We love it! Just look at the composition of the state legislature.5/28/2006 02:12:00 PM|W|P|slim|W|P|Ok, phx kid, here's the phrase Tedski wrote:
Many of the Clean Elections contributions came from members of the SEIU
and here's how you quoted it:
"Many of the Clean Elections contributions came from the SEIU"
And Republicans wonder why liberals think they're stupid and dishonest...5/28/2006 04:08:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Actually Jeff...he did quote it right, then I fixed it to avoid further confusion.
I've done this before, but I usually have noted it on the post. I neglected to do that this time. I will add a note.5/28/2006 09:00:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|Munsil has been sending out requests to his supporters to send in $5 contributions to Montgomery in his weekly emails for a little while now. We'll see how well it works.
On a purely positive note (from me? is it possible??), here's a quote from the most recent CAP email sent out Friday:
Several weeks ago, I wrote that the Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment could fail to make the November ballot for lack of signatures. Well, today, the amendment remains in trouble. With only one month left to collect signatures, we are at a very critical stage in the effort to place an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman on the November ballot. The Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition still needs 80,000 signatures to reach our goal. That averages out to more than 13,000 signatures per week. If we don’t reach this number, then the amendment could fail to make the ballot simply because we didn’t get enough valid signatures of registered voters.
I am so happy, I do the dance of joy!5/28/2006 09:13:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Bored-
Before you get too happy, the alarmist messages from the PMA folks claiming a lack of signatures could be a way to motivate volunteers, that's a method they've used to organize in other states.
But if it's true...yeah, I'm all about that.5/28/2006 11:57:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|5/29/2006 12:02:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|hey slim
I knew exactly what Ted meant in his original post. That is why I did not make a personal attach against him or his party but wrote a lighthearted reference to CCEC.
I could reply to your “stupid and dishonest” comment at this point but I am just going to wait until Kyl beats Pederson by 8%. Then I will simply gloat.5/29/2006 06:38:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Mayhap, but even so, shouldn't a 12 year incumbent running against someone so "inexperienced" beat him by more? Just curious.5/29/2006 01:44:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|Interesting, tedski. I didn't know lying was a family value that needed protecting from the gays. Live and learn.5/29/2006 05:19:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Tedski maybe he should beat him by more. But if Kyl wins by just one vote the effect is the same, he goes to DC and Pederson doesn’t.5/30/2006 08:43:00 AM|W|P|Rob F|W|P|I just think it's really interesting seeing Kyl on TV. When's the last time he even bothered to run? And seeing him suddenly spending time in AZ makes me chuckle. If a knucklehead like Pederson gives him this much trouble, imagine what a genuinely charismatic candidate would do to him. If I were a Republican, I wouldn't be quite so sanguine.5/30/2006 08:59:00 AM|W|P|GOPinsider|W|P|It will be interesting to see if Munsil has any coattails to help Montgomery gather his $5 contributions.
A recent mailing from the Montgomery campaign contained a letter from Len Munsil asking recipients to send their $5 to Bill Montgomery.
Unfortunately, I don't know what list was used or if it will help.5/31/2006 08:11:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Boredinaz,
Good news about the signature campaign. If anyone is interested in helping to fight it go to the Arizona Together site to see what is being done and contribute.
I think Munsil is a real factor in the Republican race for Governor...and what Phxkid says appears to be quite true. Clean elections gives more extreme candidates (right and left) the adequate funds to run for office. It also benefits those who have a strong grass-roots presence, like Munsil. I wont be at all suprised if his organization gets Montomery his $5 donations.5/27/2006 08:12:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Has anyone seen Jon Kyl's new ad? He's talking straight into the camera, giving us his take on the border. What is interesting about this is that it is free of the sort of alarmism that we have grown to expect from so many conservative politicians on this issue. He comes out against "amnesty," but says that "families should be given the opporitunity to gain legal status." Given that until a couple of weeks ago, many Republicans considered such a thing the same as amnesty, something must be turning on the issue.
Given the rather amorphous nature of his suggestions ("secure our borders and enforce our law" could mean anything, couldn't it?), it isn't that much different from what Jim Pederson, George Bush, Jim Kolbe or even Raúl Grijalva suggests, at least not on the surface. Of course, it is different from what Kyl himself had been presenting up until the president's speech.
One person that hasn't bought into the "kinder and gentler" "compassionate conservative" line on this one is (you all already know who I am going to name, don't you?) J. D. Hayworth. A press release on his website posted on Thursday trashes the president's plan. I take it that Bush won't be visiting Scottsdale this year.|W|P|114874398173421495|W|P|Have the Terms of the Discussion Changed?|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/27/2006 09:26:00 AM|W|P|Geo|W|P|Many of us have been expecting this kind of flip-flop from Kyl for weeks now.
He's no fool. He can see that his draconian, xenophobic, deport-em-all rhetoric was costing him voters. And with the constructive, comprehensive solutions coming from his opponent Jim Pederson, and backed up by Napolitano, Bush, McCain, Kennedy and now the vote of the Senate, Kyl and the rest of the radical rightwing are forced to come to grips with the truth: they clearly outside of the mainstream and their obstructionism has been part of the problem all along.
So Kyl either has to soften his stance and pretend he's a kinder, gentler extremist or be ridden out on a rail in November.
Hayworth still thinks he doesn't have to do this triangulation, because of the huge Republican voter registration advantage in AZ-5. But I predict that we'll see him either get softer on the issue to try to woo the moderates, Indies and conservative Dems that he's clearly run off with his bombastic tuff-talkin' non-solutions, OR we'll see him getting even MORE strident, trying to whip up even more destructive and self-serving frenzy from his xenophobic base.
I think a lot of folks are beginning to realize that Arizona will be greatly served when both of these members of the incompetent and corrupt Republican apparatus are given their pink slips in November.
It's time for the mainstream to be represented in Arizona, again, and for the grown-ups to once more be in control of the government.5/27/2006 01:58:00 PM|W|P|Tony GOPrano|W|P|You DemoRats crack me up!!! You think you can buy a US Senate seat in Arizona? Your all delusional, dream on....Gonna be fun to watch "your" guv, Jack Napolitano get grilled by the Clean Elections Commission. Senator Kyl will continue to be the Junior Senator from Arizona...FERGEITABOUTIT!!!5/27/2006 04:47:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Funny...I was talking about Kyl's new ad...and you went right back to the popular Republican talking point about Pederson "buying" the seat.
So, Republicans don't like money in politics now? Will you be more supportive of Clean Elections now?5/28/2006 02:22:00 PM|W|P|slim|W|P|Looks to me like the whole thing was cribbed from this poll and focus group driven report by Frank Luntz.5/28/2006 09:09:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|geo, is he softening his stance or just softening his rhetoric to make his stance more palatable to the electorate?
tony goprano, did you wander in from the Plugged In site? You bring up an interesting topic that has been studiously ignored over here ... Janet Napolitano's Clean Elections troubles. But doing it that way doesn't help yourself. To paraphrase Prince, act your age not your shoe size. Then maybe we can discuss the storm cloud brewing over her campaign.5/29/2006 12:17:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Tedski in response to your question “So, Republicans don’t like money in politics now?” I would say no. I still love money in politics. If the Kyl v. Pederson race gets close watch the money poor into the state. Few people can raise money like a sitting U.S. President, even one with low numbers in the polls.
Kyl is a great Senator who is loyal to the principals of his party and those that voted him into office. I have not heard one Republican utter a word of disappointment with Kyl. If you think the independents will rescue Pederson in this election you should do some polling on the border issue among most likely to vote independents.5/25/2006 03:38:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I guess we have ourselves a trend. You may remember that last week a letter anonymously went out from a couple of brave souls trashing Councilmember José Ibarra. This week, some other group of oh so brave souls are trashing Senator Gabrielle Giffords.
Oh, but they aren't anonymous...they have a name, "Real Democrats for Real Democrats."
See, their premise is that Gabrielle Giffords isn't a "Real Democrat." Their evidence is that Giffords was registered as a Republican back when she lived in New York. Never mind that she wasn't an active Republican, and not even a very good one if her views then resemble her votes as a state legislator.
Question for you: does this mean that Republicans who leave the party to join the Democrats are not welcome in our party now? Slade Mead, go home!
The challenge I have issued to supporters of other candidates when they say this is to find a vote where she sold out Democratic issues. To date, none of them have been able to find one. Why would so many progressive people and groups support her if she ever did? Are they all ignorant?
These folks dug in to her record and found her "sell-out" vote, and I was shocked.
She voted for a resolution creating a day honoring Ronald Reagan.
Is that the best you can do?
By the way, Democrats Victor Soltero, Harry Mitchell and Albert Hale voted for the resolution as well. Sell-outs one and all, right?
(Marsha Arzberger voted for it too, she does tend to be a conservative Democrat though. I wouldn't recommend sending out anonymous letters about her, she packs. And her husband could still kick your ass no matter how old he is now.)
(And another "by the way," Ken Cheuvront voted against it, and most progressive activists can't stand him. My point is that this isn't much of a litmus test, is it?)
Once again, they dig up the phony issue about Giffords's choice of campaign chairs. Giffords's original chairs were Dorothy Finley and Eddie Basha. When she first picked Basha, I heard grousing that he was anti-labor. Then, she dropped Basha. The complaint was then that she was selling out to that gawdawful special interest, organized labor.
I have heard these complaints from the exact same people. Heck, the letter has both complaints in it. Is she anti-labor, or is she too pro-labor? Make up your minds.
By the way, if she is anti-labor, why have so many unions thrown in with her? I know, I know, weak-kneed sell outs, right? Given that she's been endorsed by the teamsters, the machinists and the carpenters, I wouldn't recommend saying that to their face.
By the way, her Republican support is supposed to be evidence that she's not a good Democrat, so does the number of progressive supporters make her progressive? Why not?
They also go after Dorothy Finley. Yes, Finley is a Republican. Yes, she gives money to Republicans, but she also gives money to Democrats. She gave money to Paul Babbitt, which hardly anyone did. She also gave money to Raúl Grijalva, another sell-out for sure, right? She also gave money to my brother's last campaign, when many supposedly "good" Democratic donors wouldn't even return his phone calls. If you wish to call my brother a crypto-Republican sell-out, I suggest we take it up in person.
But, of course, you chose not to take it up in person, did you?
Here's what galls me the most about the letter: the complaint that many progressive activists have with our elected officials is that they cringe too much, that they don't seem to have the courage of their convictions to stand up for our values against big conservative money or conservative sniping in the media. You are right, and I share that frustration. How does one argue this point, but send out an anonymous hit on someone?
I have my doubts that a campaign sent this out. It seems more likely that this is the supporter of one of the other candidates who thinks that this will actually be helpful. You aren't helping. If it was sent by a campaign, it is highly unethical and, frankly, illegal.
Is this the sort of thing we are going to be treated to over the next few months?
NB - I haven't gotten a chance to put this up, but it seems related. A few months back, I spoke to a supporter of Patty Weiss, who told me that Giffords was not "progressive" enough. I told him, but she's got a record that is very progressive. Then he said, that is the problem, because the Republicans are going to rip her up for that, and it's better to nominate someone with no record. So, she's not progressive enough, but her progressiveness is a problem. Hrm.|W|P|114859990178191251|W|P|I Don't Know Albert, We Don't Know Anyone Named Ann Onymous|W|Pemail@example.com/25/2006 04:40:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|Remind me what it was you said about John Verkamp a couple of weeks ago.5/25/2006 04:49:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I'll do better than that, here is the link.
I never trashed Verkamp for being a party switcher, but some of my readers did.5/25/2006 05:00:00 PM|W|P|Mister T in AZ|W|P|If we start saying that former Republicans can't be a part of our team ... we are in BIG TROUBLE.
See folks, there are these things called "Elections" where "voters" who tend to be registered as either a "Democrat", a "Republican", or as "party not declared" vote for those who will "lead us".
More often then not, the voters will stick with their party. This is BAD NEWS for whoever is in the party with LESS REGISTRANTS ... yup, we are talking about the "Democrats" in Arizona.
In order for Democrats to win, independents and republicans have to vote for us. And in order for the victories we get to become long term and for this state to become "Democratic" or as some of you would like to say "Blue" it requires some of those Independents and Republicans to see where they were wrong and join our party.
In other words GET OVER IT ... if things keep up the way they are now, there are going to be way more republicans coming over to our side. Let's welcome them with open arms, help their ideological transformation along the way through education and "nurturing" and watch the "guns in bars" crowd start to whither away.
ORRRRRRR we could just rest on our laurels, not want any new people, and be content with ideological self importance and selfishness.
< /rant >5/25/2006 05:13:00 PM|W|P|union guy|W|P|Gabby's opponents:
- "yeah gabby votes the right way, that's the problem"
- "yeah gabby has raised more money, that's the problem."
- "yeah gabby has more endorsements, that's the problem."
- "yeah gabby appeals to both democrats and republicans, that's the problem."5/25/2006 05:36:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Thanks for this revealing post Ted!
I had been responding to similar attacks all spring on these blogs. At the time, many of them had come from Latas supporters and then when they backed off, it appeared that they were coming from Weiss supporters.
Who knows though, this could be coming from Republicans who are very worried about the fact that Gabby appeals to progressives, liberals, business types, moderates...and by golly even a few Republicans. In addition, she has the most organized and funded campaign of all who are running (including Republicans). I risk saying this because I know that someone will undoubtably attack her for being "too liberal"...or OH...gosh..."she appeals to business" OR..."wow...she can't be one of us if a Republican would vote for her".
The truth, from my experience these past months, no matter WHAT Gabrielle Giffords does right, people are laying into her. I would think about that as you see how poised she has been in this campaign and as you consider who would make the best new Rep. for our district.5/25/2006 05:39:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Rats...Union Guy stole my thunder again! Well said. I would add these charges from her opponents:
"union endorsements mean nothing because this is a right to work state"
"she is too conservative"
"She can't win because some super secret internal poll says she is losing right now"
All of it is just total non-sense and as Art Jacobson says..."sour grapes"5/25/2006 05:55:00 PM|W|P|grannuaile|W|P|It really is amazing. Democrats should be ecstatic to have a progressive (pro-environment, pro-gay, pro-education, pro-union, and pro-choice) candidate who manages to stand up for all of those values and still gain the support of the business community. No, far better to trash that candidate as being too.. no, wait, not enough... or, what we mean is she used to be a... well, no, not recently but, um...
Seriously.5/25/2006 05:58:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...since I have quit pulling punches (grin)...here is what some have been saying about Gabrielle...some of the Latas supporters. Enjoy!
http://gilamonsterville.blogspot.com5/25/2006 09:20:00 PM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|As a former Republican AND a proud Giffords supporter, I encourage my fellow Democrats to welcome our redemption...and not blast us for the original sin.
Primaries allow parties to better define themselves while also sorting out the question of who should carry the party standard into November. However, the "more Democrat than thou" rhetoric spewing forth from some of the anti-Gabby folks is both condescending and self-defeating. It serves no purpose but to bring smiles to Republican faces.
I'm planning to vote Giffords in September and vote Democrat in November. I hope Gabby is our nominee, but if she isn't, I want to support a strong nominee who isn't scarred from an ugly primary replete with fabrications, anonymous cheap shots and endless refernces to boogeymen in either the DLC or the corner Basha's grocery.
If this nonsense is coming from the Latas or the Weiss camp, they should grow up, shut their mouths and repeat the two words that ought to frighten and unify us-CONGRESSMAN GRAF!5/26/2006 01:01:00 AM|W|P|anonymous|W|P|Gabby is unknown and more anonymous in CD 8 than her supporters will admit.
This inconvenient fact trumps her other negatives and makes her unelectable in November and September.
She needs more than a warchest of money and endorsements to change this.
She could use a clear platform devoid of eastern seaboard platitudes and more of a humane policy that places people before business.5/26/2006 06:39:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Great reading. Please nominate Weiss. The Republican have been studying her proposal to colonize Mars before the Chinese. If she wins the nomination the GOP will unveil a plan to send Patrick Stewart and a team of undocumented workers on a journey to Jupiter before the Chileans get there, thus trumping one of Patty’s best proposals and taking the momentum out of her campaign.5/26/2006 07:33:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Ahhhhh the fabled "anonymous" is BACK! (smile). He/she always fires me up and often gets me to write another check out of my small bank account for Gabby Giffords.
Let me say this. She is very well known in the district...especially among Democrat primary voters. During the primary she will increase her name recognition outside Tucson by what she is already doing. Attending events, campaigning, and meeting people. Then will come the ads. After the primary, the winner will become annointed...as they almost always do...unless scarred by these baseless attacks. After that...I think she wins.5/26/2006 08:01:00 AM|W|P|Geo|W|P|I appreciate what you folks are saying, and especially what Mr. T and Rex commented.
After being a life-long Republican, then having a few years of serious and growing concerns, I finally switched to the Democratic party in late March.
Let's just say that my "welcome into the fold" hasn't been inordinately enthusiastic.
I find I'm at least AS informed about the issues, and FAR more knowledgeable about the "opposition", than most of the other Dems I talk to. I'm voting Dem, championing Dem and have been pretty vocal about my affiliation in various online forums. At times, it seems I'm the only Dem in Arizona willing to wade into the swamp of AZ Republic's "Plugged In" on any given issue.
I'd love to get more involved and help out. But there does seem to be something of a reluctance, though, which I guess is understandable.
Maybe after a few more months, or maybe a few more elections, of proving myself, I can be "one of us".
Patience, grasshopper. :)5/26/2006 08:02:00 AM|W|P|Geo|W|P|Oh, and I support Giffords.5/26/2006 09:23:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|Thanks for the link, tedski. I couldn't recall who invoked the ideological purity test, but that refreshed my recollection. I see Eli hasn't posted on this one yet.5/26/2006 09:30:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|geo,
I've seen your posts on Plugged In and you acquit yourself quite well, whatever your political affiliation. Unfortunatly, as you no doubt know, rational commenters on that site are few and far between.
Don't worry about 'fitting in' to the party. I doubt it has much to do with your GOP past so much as it is just cliquish reluctance to let the new boy into their special club. You know, we never really leave junior high.5/26/2006 10:36:00 AM|W|P|boohoo|W|P|I thought the letter was factually true. Was there anything that was false?5/26/2006 11:17:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Boohoo,
Haven't seen the letter yet. From what Tedski posts, it all looks factually true. As with most things political, it's all in how you spin it.
As an example on a more global concern -- recently their have been a pair of advertisements put out by conservative-backed organizarions questioning the science behind global warming. Both cite a report in which it was concluded the ice layer in Antartica is actually thickening. So both are factually true.
What both _fail_ to note is the thickening of the Antartic ice cap is actually _predicted_ by global warming. I.e., both ads are taking a fact which supports global warming and, by selectively ommiting certain context, making it appear it challenges global warming.
It's a similar thing here ... people are taking certain facts (Giffords has received money from Republicans, or Giffords is supported by Basha) and selectively using them outside of the overall context to make Giffords appear, say, anti-labor, when, in fact, her voting record very clearly indicates otherwise.
Just because all the presented facts are true doesn't mean the conclusion drawn is.5/26/2006 12:07:00 PM|W|P|boohoo|W|P|I guess your somewhat right, but I did see the letter and I didn't see much spin at all, just factually statements.
I also know about many other things about her record not in the letter that are pro big business and have heard her say things very much against environmental organizations stances. I'd be glad to elaborate, but I'd look very anti Gabriotic.5/26/2006 01:24:00 PM|W|P|vetdem|W|P|Didn't Giffords recently get the endorsement of the Sierra Club? I know she received an award as the environmental legislator of the year when in the Senate. You can't get more pro environment than that.5/26/2006 02:16:00 PM|W|P|George Tuttle|W|P|Vetdem, does her stance on oil refineries stand up to what the Sierra Club wants??
The last answer she gave certainly flew in the face of the Sierra Club.
Oh well, next week we'll see a different answer--depending upon the crowd she speaks to.5/26/2006 02:49:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|Sierra Club voted her Most Valuable Player of the Year. Go to their website yourself where you can see the ratings of elected officials. She got A+ while Huffman got a D.
I have posted elsewhere about facts vs. bizarre assertions. I chased one allegation (Walmart supports her) to a Phx consultant who "possibly helped Walmart" and donated $300 to Giffords campaign last December. Please!
The refinery thing is also over at kos but I can't get facts about that either (George?), and now something about nukes??
So, I either see falsehoods (Walmart supports her) or facts that don't matter, at least to me (Finley is a republican and supports republicans). Haven't seen the letter yet, but sounds like a lot of the latter.
Finally, consider that those "Real Democrats" are not democrats at all. R's care about this primary, and have heard they will be involved (although did not hear how).
Know at least one that said the big R's fear Giffords the most, for simple reasons like $$, endorsements, volunteers, and what doesn't get mentioned too often, the quality of her staff.5/26/2006 04:47:00 PM|W|P|union guy|W|P|George,
First it's the unions don't know what they're doing...
Now it's the Sierra Club doesn't know what it's doing...
How many progressive endorsements will it take to convince you that Gabby is beloved by almost all of the progressive organizations?5/26/2006 04:48:00 PM|W|P|boohoo|W|P|Well that makes the Sierra Club look pretty bad doesn't it. Hope thay haven't endorsed yet, at least until they pin down that refinery and nuke issue. Hope they get to the bottom of that pretty quickly.
I would suggest that the unions take a look at her record a little closer before any more endorsments, too. It could be kinda embarrasing.5/26/2006 05:05:00 PM|W|P|boohoo|W|P|Thought I'd look into this a litle. I know some folks out there who are connected to these issues. Sounds like the environmental statements were made at two different events.
Giffords backs building refineries and said at a forum nukes are needed. I don't know the exact words but I confirmed with four people that these were firm statements.
Once again, if anyone is a Sierra Club member, you should be made aware of this.
I also have the voting record and for anyone that is wondering why the Giffords campaign hasn't posted it on her site, I know why. You union types, you should fire your leadership that endorsed her.5/26/2006 08:50:00 PM|W|P|union guy|W|P|boohoo,
Actions speak louder then words.
Gabby has a 100% League of Conservation Voters record.
Gabby has an A+ voting record with the Sierra Club.
Gabby has a perfect labor voting record.
She is a progressive, she has demonstrated it for years.
And she appeals to Republicans.
The DCCC couldn't have manufactured a better candidate.
Naysayers don't build a movement.5/26/2006 08:53:00 PM|W|P|vetdem|W|P|I don't get this refinery statement. Don't we all drive cars? Don't we like our homes cool in the summer and warm in the winter? How do you think oil is turned into fuel? I'm not sure what the refinery statement was but refineries are needed to support our economy and our way of life. If we need another refinery in New Jersey, what do we care? Wake up people! This sounds like the Latas or Weiss camp standing by with the pencil to see what they can take out of context. Say something good about your candidate. They do have something to offer.5/26/2006 11:17:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Ted:
To clarify your 16:49 post, I didn't jump on Verkamp for being a former Republican, I jumped on him for remaining loyal to them even when it meant he had to give up on retaining his Senate seat, and suddenly having an apparently radical shift. I questioned his sincerity, and I still question it. Mead has clearly made the transition, after being publically 'helped' out the door by the GOP in a legislative primary.5/27/2006 12:19:00 AM|W|P|cc burro|W|P|TEDSKI--
I thought you disallowed "ANONYMOUS" postings months ago?
I received the anonymous anti-Ibarra letter, saw it was anonymous, and trashed it immediately. [I'm not an Ibarra fan but I too don't like "anonymous" negative letters/flyers. Rove used these against Ann Richards in Texas.]
May moderate Republicans who support the constitution, fiscal responsibility, and anti-aggression foreign policy join the Democrats!5/27/2006 06:44:00 AM|W|P|Conservative Majority|W|P|No, Gabby is a Dem. You should have seen the liberal floor amendments that she had drafted, but never offered. She had one to take "God" out of the preamble to our state constitution. On Tibshrany's bill to remove laws found unconstitutional, she was going amend to include abortion-restriction laws. You will not find these on her voting record because she had them drafted and distributed, but not voted on.5/27/2006 06:44:00 AM|W|P|Conservative Majority|W|P|No, Gabby is a Dem. You should have seen the liberal floor amendments that she had drafted, but never offered. She had one to take "God" out of the preamble to our state constitution. On Tibshrany's bill to remove laws found unconstitutional, she was going amend to include abortion-restriction laws. You will not find these on her voting record because she had them drafted and distributed, but not voted on.5/27/2006 10:59:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Are Giffords supporters really that uninformed or are you all just playing dumb?
As bloggers, surely you have read the most popular (600,000+ daily reads) political blog out there. And still you want to claim the Sierra Club has not sold out?
Sierra Club lies and manipulates and
This is probably why not too many voters have faith in endorsements.
At least the smart ones.
Wait, are there any in Arizona?
The leaders of the unions and various orgs manipulate and cherry pick what they want to use to justify their endorsements. No wonder Giffords has 8!5/27/2006 11:17:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Conservative majority (?), submitted floor amendments are a matter of record. Could you cite the specific ones you are referring to? I have a friend who is a researcher there and can pull any submitted ones whether to committee or full house and whether approved or not. Name the legislative session number, bill and amendment and I can get the detail of it.
Giffords isn't any more progressive than any of the rest there and she certainly is much less when it comes to kissing up to the corporations. She has been proud to run as a centrist, as numerous newspaper articles will attest to. Of course, that won't win her the liberal base so she has to change her message. I would really rather vote for Graf. At least he can pick an issue and stick with it. Giffords reeks of the Hillary syndrome. She is trying so hard to pander she can't take a stand on anything.
If the Latas and Weiss campaigns were smart, they would start publishing some of the votes she hasn't exactly been touting. Weiss is taking the high road, which won’t help her, and Latas' supporters spend too much time focused on stupid stuff on Giffords instead of her record. At best, Giffords was a very mediocre legislator, which is why we don't get a heck of a lot accomplished in our state House and Senate. Carpool for hybrids is what she touts as her progressive bill? Yeah, we have SOOO many carpool lanes in Tucson. Had she had a brain in her head and really wanted to appease environmentalists she would have sponsored a $5000 rebate, not a fricken ‘carpool privilege’ bill. Oh, and of course, numerous committees to ‘study’ things. Bureacracy at it’s best worst. That is pretty much typical of her legislative skill. All fluff and no substance.
I am not a fan of any of the candidates, as they all seem out of touch with the reality of what impacts most people's lives. Since Gffords has anointed herself the front-runner, I will just choose to pick on her the most. Plus she makes it so much fun each time she opens her mouth.5/27/2006 11:25:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|vetdem said...
"I know she received an award as the environmental legislator of the year when in the Senate. You can't get more pro environment than that."
Now I am peeing my pants! Arizona, with endless sunshine and we cannot even get basic solar power, sustainable and renewable energy plans - yet Giffords who proposed carpool priorities for hybrids gets the environmentalist award? This is exactly why Arizona ranks the dumbest state in the nation.
I assume Giffords actually drives a hybrid, right? At least Latas can claim that.5/28/2006 08:34:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|5/28/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well...there you have it, we are all idjits and the candidates all suck (Latas doesn't suck so much because he has a hybrid.) Why do you even bother posting, then?5/28/2006 09:14:00 AM|W|P|Conservative Majority|W|P|To FedUp: No, I do not have time to research the bills. You researcher should be able to find them as well as I can.5/28/2006 07:42:00 PM|W|P|boohoo|W|P|I've seen them and it's not all rosy for the money candidate. I predict that all those high dollar contributions will be wasted before to long. If they only knew the record.
PS The Sierra Club should be more careful on who they give there awards to, same with the unions. One of the candidates will come out when the time is right.5/29/2006 12:00:00 AM|W|P|anonymous|W|P|This will all be decided in September.5/29/2006 07:35:00 AM|W|P|Dogma|W|P|What just kills me about the rhetorical hullabaloo by some regarding Gabby is that it consists entirely of disingenuous, unsubstantiated accusations, which often verge on being just plain silly.
Can anyone tell me why I, or other pragmatic Democrat, should consider voting for anyone else without mentioning Giffords? And I ask the question sincerely!
If you cannot make the case why anyone should support Weiss or Latas without throwing rocks at Giffords, then I would suggest your thinking is flawed and your positions are ill considered. If you can, that would make for a meaningful point of departure for ‘real’ dialogue on the subject.5/29/2006 02:45:00 PM|W|P|boohoo|W|P|Dogma,
Part of the problem is this is a Gabby supported site, right Ted?
Ted only has Giffords site linked, none others. This is why this is a gg target.
I'd be glad to tell you who I support without you know who, but I don't think this would do much good. Besides, it sure is fun pointing to all the Gabriots how they are so flawed.5/29/2006 05:42:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This is not a "Gabby supported site," it is a site that supports Gabrielle Giffords. Despite what has been alleged, I am not paid by the Giffords campaign. I realize that it is hard for some supporters of other candidates to believe that anyone would support someone they don't like without being bribed.
Also, the name "Gabby" is reserved for friends of hers. It's Gabrielle to you, pal.5/30/2006 06:01:00 AM|W|P|boohoo|W|P|OK Pal,
I hope you pay the same respect to the other candidateshas well as your readers. So I expect those not close to refer to the real leaders of this race as Mrs. Weiss and Lt Col (perhaps Col.) Latas. He did earn this title after retiring from the AF.
By the way, Miss. Griffords just might be a friend so your assumption of our friendship is less then justified. I just know that she isn't what I want in Washington representing me.5/30/2006 07:41:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Even though I support Gabby, I know Patty as well. Is it ok for me to still call her Patty, or do I have to call her Mrs. Weiss? What are teh rules here?
I don't know Jeff at all, so I guess it's Mr. Latas for him.5/30/2006 08:06:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Sirocco-
I was just trying to be an ass.6/01/2006 06:45:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|By the way, Arizona Congress Watch reports that Gabrielle Giffords has received the endorsement of the Sierra Club.
For those out there that are concerned about her being "too close to business" note her endorsements by many of our nation's largest unions, environmental groups, and most every police and fire group in the valley. Yes, she also has worked with business, but not to the exclusion of the needs of our environment and labor.
To the detractors...find all the picky little compromises she has made that you want. You can try to make as much of it as you want, but the truth is that her record and support has attracted the support of important groups across the spectrum. These endorsements are not going to the other candidates...they are going to Giffords.
I just want to end by saying that the attacks look more and more desperate and untenable as her successes mount...and no one has started punching at Weiss or Latas...yet.
Oh...and my yet prediction is this: There are only so many primary votes to go around (traditional primary voters)...Latas and Weiss are now still in the race and are fighting it out as the alternative to Giffords. This is clear. How long before they start fighting each other?
Roger6/03/2006 11:02:00 AM|W|P|Raoullynotnice|W|P|So far, the only people fighting Jeff & Patty are the people who support Gabby. All this talk of endorsements and characterizations (mischaracterizations) of Jeff's & Patty's supporters is completely disingenuous. Why not look at the issues?
I am not supporting Giffords because she is out of step with the electorate. Anyone who feels that we should keep our troops in Iraq "...as long as necessary..." is not going to get my vote. Let her waffle around that!5/25/2006 12:11:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Once in a while, there is justice.|W|P|114858434137209639|W|P|Breaking News|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/25/2006 01:49:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Saw this on the NY Times site just s little while ago. Couldn't have happened to a better pair of scoundrals.
It won't mean much tangibly to the families ruined by their shenanigans, but hopefully those folks will sleep a little happier tonight.
No, I don't normally engage in scheudenfreude, but this is one of those rare occassions where I will make an exception.5/25/2006 06:16:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|They are disgusting...and as Elliot Spitzer said in Tucson yesterday, this is what deregulation...and not enforcing meaningful market rules is all about. Folks...there has never been a true Smith-ian free market...those with power, time, money and access will always try to make the rules guarding markets benefit them.5/26/2006 11:04:00 AM|W|P|cpmaz|W|P|Hate to bring a note of cynicism to the party (so unusual for me, really :) ), but we should start a pool, hell, a couple of them, on how long they actually spend in prison (not their sentences, actual time served) and what date their Presidential Pardons become official.
Personally, I'm guessing sometime in the week after the general election in November 2008. With net time served at less than a year after the appeals process.5/24/2006 05:24:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Okay...I asked for confirmation from up north...and I got it. Grady Gammage Jr. is apparently registered as a Democrat, but is a conservative/moderate one that has given to Republicans like Sal DiCicco and Susan Bitter-Smith in the past.
One correspondent was happy to point out to me that Harry Mitchell's treasurer, John Bebbling, had been a supporter of J. D. Hayworth as recently as last year but apparently has grown just as tired of him as the rest of us.|W|P|114851694915617745|W|P|Gammage Control|W|Pemail@example.com/25/2006 11:05:00 AM|W|P|union guy|W|P|Leo Corbet, a Republican who was president of the Arizona Senate and a former Republican candidate for Arizona Governor, is holding a fundraiser for Harry Mitchell tonight as well.5/25/2006 11:07:00 AM|W|P|Tom Prezelski|W|P|Of course, some of us in Tucson are still steamed at Grady Gammage's father for his role in getting Tempe Normal re-named Arizona State "University." In fairness, I think they actually hold classes there now. Some of them are even well-attended on Mondays.5/24/2006 06:49:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This is where I need help from some of you up in the Valley of the
Yakes Sun. What is going on up there? I just heard that Grady Gammage Jr. is endorsing Harry Mitchell for Congress. Not just endorsing, he's a campaign co-chairman.
Am I wrong here, isn't Gammage a Republican? From what I've read about this guy, he's not exactly the model of a "swing" voter. So, a long time Republican is not supporting an incumbent Republican congressman?
Well, this isn't the first possible endorsement Hayworth has lost. I'm only saying this because it seems he's having trouble finding anyone.
I'm not too comfortable with Gammage. Time and time again, he has come out for big time developers against conservation and neighborhood interests. But the fact that a guy like this would rather throw in with a Democrat than Hayworth tells me that he is in big, big trouble.|W|P|114847970799079715|W|P|J. D., You Lost Grady Gammage?|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/24/2006 08:34:00 AM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Hayworth used to be the congressman from up here, until we got our own district and Richmond Ricky.
The problem with Hayworth (even for Republicans) is, if you need a rhetorical bomb thrown, he's great, but as far as actually being a guy who solves problems (and isn't this what Congress is supposed to do?) he's a zero. I mean, Congress' business is to legislate, but look at the legislation he's pushed-- a resolution giving a choice of 'withdraw from Iraq by dropping your guns and running' or 'shut-up and support the war,' or making illegals felons. Not the sort of stuff designed to produce a consensus, just more of a partisan divide.
When the biggest problems facing the country were what Monica did with the cigar, maybe Republicans could tolerate a blowhard like this, but living in an age when we are faced with problems that threaten the future of the Republic (and whatever your stands are on issues like Iraq, how to pursue the war on terrorism, health care costs increasing at a double digit rate, rebuilding New Orleans and the Mississippi coast, and protecting against future catastrophes of this magnitude, skyrocketing oil prices, immigration and the border, the deficit and in particular why the Chinese are buying so much of it, nuclear proliferation and similar issues) this is the time for reasoned and rational debate designed to produce a consensus that most of America can support as a national policy, and as we well know, that isn't J.D.'s strong suit.5/24/2006 09:12:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|"...the fact that a guy like this would rather throw in with a Democrat than Hayworth tells me that he is in big, big trouble."
or that Harry is more pro-development and/or less enviro than you'd like to believe.
Don't be so surprised. Mitchell is a politician, not a saint (although you'd never know it by reading the fawning praise from the young leftie posters around these parts).5/24/2006 10:06:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I never said Mitchell was a saint...I just said I'd like him to replace Hayworth. Although, I suppose I should wait until someone absolutely ideologically pure comes along before we replace him.5/24/2006 10:30:00 AM|W|P|The Screaming Centrist|W|P|For I second I thought you were talking about the auditorium. I'm thinking, how the hell does an individual lose an entire auditorium? That's got to be a political setback. Then I saw you were talking about the guy. Whew!5/24/2006 10:45:00 AM|W|P|grannuaile|W|P|Harry Mitchell has consistantly scored 100% on the Arizona League of Conservation Voters scorecard, and was one of only 3 senators last year to do so. Likewise, he was one of only 3 senators to score an A+ on the Sierra Club's 2005 Scorecard. It's actually funny that this is coming up today given that just last night, at an AZLCV event, Harry was recognized for his years of work on behalf of Arizona's natural resources.
Those environmental groups and their fawning praise!5/24/2006 12:15:00 PM|W|P|cpmaz|W|P|"I'm not too comfortable with Gammage. Time and time again, he has come out for big time developers against conservation and neighborhood interests."
Nothing has changed - Gammage is fronting a movement to give Papago Park in Phoenix and Tempe to developers to put condos, houses and commercial buildings on.
Opposing viewpoints (and the 2nd is Gammage's)
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0430gammage0430.html5/24/2006 02:32:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|tedski,
that remark wasn't addressed to you as much as it was to the beatifcation advocates in Tempe and its environs.
hilarious!5/24/2006 06:31:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I posted back in February that there was a rumor that David Petersen would resign from office. This led to his son Paul Petersen posting here and writing to me to tell me that his father would never, never resign. He also told me I was irrelevant, which made me wonder why he chose to respond to my comments at all.
Well, I suppose that Paul was correct and I was wrong. Petersen hasn't resigned.
Instead, he has chosen not to show up to work.
He's still drawing a salary, of course.
NB - The Arizona Democratic Party has a special contest related to Petersen.|W|P|114847828120499555|W|P|I Was Wrong About David Petersen|W|Pemail@example.com/24/2006 10:12:00 PM|W|P|Sandy in Prescott|W|P|Wow what a bunch of idiots the Arizona Democratic Party is? Like anyone has any idea who our treasurer is? People are just going to confuse Peterson with Pederson.
Thanks for proving why Democrats do not deserve to win back in the Senate.5/25/2006 06:41:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Um...so Democrats don't deserve to win the senate because there is a corrupt Republican elected official with nearly the same name?5/26/2006 07:03:00 PM|W|P|Sandy in Prescott|W|P|No actually no one said that. I am saying that the Democrats are shooting Jim Pederson in the foot by making this a story for a Treasurer seat that they will never win.5/22/2006 05:33:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Today, the Pima County Democratic Party was treated to a visit from Randy Graf associate and former militia leader Russ Dove. Dove has been demanding access to the Party's voter file, which has been refused, and was refused again today. Dove left in a huff, telling long time Democratic fixture Martin Bacal that he would have a fight on his hands.
Dove is registered as a Republican (which means his civil rights must have been restored after that grand theft conviction), so it would be unusual for him to think he would be given access to the Democratic party's file. Dove, however, claims to be working on behalf of a mystery candidate, who he refuses to name. If this person has concerns with having himself known, then maybe he should think about a different hobby than electoral politics. Dove has claimed that the candidate lives in California but will move here to run. He has also claimed that the candidate lives in Cochise County and has been in touch with people there. He at one point gave this guy the name "William Johnson." ( At least he didn't say "Howard") Now he is saying that they are still looking for someone.
Dove, some of you may remember, was caught attempting to intimidate Hispanic voters at polling places during the 2004 elections. So, Dove, how exactly do you know which voters are illegal aliens and which aren't? Are you some sort of high level Scientologist that can read those secret runes on their foreheads? 'Cause, I know, if two people walk in to vote, a dark skinned native born man with a mustache and a Guadalajara Chivas shirt, and the other is a red-headed freckled Irish student who overstayed her student visa, you'll immediately pick out the student as the illegal, right?
Dove is also a broadcast partner of perenial candidate and anti-semite Joe Sweeney. He also was part of the Border Guardians group that attempted to disrupt a city council meeting last week. Why the heck does this guy think the Democrats should give him their voter file?|W|P|114834646273252366|W|P|Stirrings From Mystery Candidate|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/23/2006 02:59:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|I wonder how he would react if Martin Bacal asked him for a contact list of militia members?5/22/2006 03:14:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Okay, here I am to debunk a rumor rather than spread it. Frank Costanzo is not leaving the Patty Weiss campaign. Several people e-mailed me asking about this story, and apparently there was even a post on Daily Kos alleging that Costanzo had been canned. The "evidence" people have been giving is that Costanzo hadn't been seen in a while. Well, he hasn't been seen because he was on vacation in Europe. He's back now, so everybody stop worrying.
Okay, next rumor, please? I'm looking for a real good one.|W|P|114833672579432356|W|P|Frankly, That Rumor Is Bunk|W|Pemail@example.com/22/2006 04:33:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Thanks for running that down, I had seen the Daily Kos post and was wondering.5/23/2006 06:44:00 AM|W|P|vetdem|W|P|That's good news for the other candidates.5/23/2006 09:11:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|Was Costanzo the one who came up with the brilliant issue of manned colonies on Mars to beat the Chinese? 'Cuz that's a winner!
http://www.espressopundit.com/5/23/2006 07:56:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|no that was me Bored...I thought it would be something fun to do with Republicans.5/24/2006 06:57:00 AM|W|P|Sonoran Sam|W|P|So Frank Costanzo thinks it's OK to spend several weeks in Europe instead of focusing his talents on one of the major races that will decide control of Congress.
Patty Weiss deserves a refund.
Speaking of Patty, she's a nice lady who has every right to run, and doesn't deserve some of the nasty brown stuff that's been hurled her way.
Having said that, those Koolaid drinkers who think that Gabrielle Giffords lacks idological purity should peruse Jon Kyl's FEC reports. They'll see that before Patty ran, her husband donated money to...guess who?5/24/2006 07:01:00 AM|W|P|Sonoran Sam|W|P|5/24/2006 07:11:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|I had some of the same thoughts Sam -- it seems like an odd time to take a month off for a vacation.
Nothing wrong with her husband supporting a Republican candidate -- Democrats are allowed to marry Repubs. It is kind of funny though.5/25/2006 07:59:00 AM|W|P|TooBlue4U|W|P|I appreciate that you squelched that rumor. This blog, being a supporter of Giffords and all.
To the best of my knowledge, her husband is not a republican, never has been, unlike some folks running for Congress.
Sam, we have every right to question her ideological purity, given that she's not much different from a moderate Repub.. so, I fail to see what about her candidacy will motivate voters to get to the polls... Being a good fundraiser doesn't equal rank and file excitement. If you're a Dem and you've got a choice between a moderate republican and a former moderate republican, that's not much of a choice. In a year when the Dems have a shot at taking the House from the GOP, I would hope that party insiders who will vote in the primary will think about that when they visit the polls.5/26/2006 03:00:00 PM|W|P|vetdem|W|P|In a district that has more R's than D's it's good that there is a democratic candidate that is being supported by progressives, the unions, moderate republicans.....
We couldn't ask for a better candidate than Giffords. She's certainly the best opportunity for us to win this seat.5/20/2006 09:50:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Our political firmament became a bit more void yesterday when former City Councilman Bruce Wheeler and former Rep. Mark Thompson threw in the towel, called it a day and left the stage.
(I'm hearing that I should use more metaphors. Or are those similes?)
To their credit, neither candidate said that they "needed to spend more time with their families."
Wheeler served on the City Council here for many years, and I helped him out with his last run for that office back in 1991. Interestingly, he first was elected to that office with a little help from Mo Udall's operation, who were bitter because of the imcumbent councilman's support for Mo's primary opponent, Luis Gonzales. Yes, sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but Mo could play the revenge game as well as anyone. It was the fact that he could do it with a smile is one of the reasons we miss him.
One of Wheeler's more infamous (not bad, just infamous) acts while on the council was cutting down the fence at Kennedy Park during a Cinco de Mayo festival. Organizers took a piece of a public park, fenced it off, and charged people for entering, a clear violation of policy established by the council. When city staff took no action, Wheeler got a pair of bolt cutters and took care of it himself.
Wheeler was also part of a crew called the "Tucson Crazies," a group of liberal (that was the word in those days) legislators from Tucson the included Morris Farr and Sister Claire Dunn that caused no end of trouble for the folks in Phoenix back in the late 1970's. Those were the days.
He said he had trouble establishing ID in Phoenix. Well, does anyone know who the heck Israel Torres is either? I wonder if the real reason was his lack of strong name ID down here, where he had not been involved in public life since a quixotic bid for mayor in 1995.
I always found Mark Thompson to be a cypher, yet another cookie cutter self righteous Maricopa County conservative, easily replaceable, like those hierlings in James Bond movies. Well, he was taller and balder than most, with one of those builds one aquires from too many hours at a gym rather than actual sports or physical labor. I only comment on this because no one I talk to can name anything he got done when he had been in the legislature before. He came in fourth place, as an incumbent, the last time he ran. His supporters still claim that now-Sen. Edward Ablesser cheated, but had he beaten Ablesser, he still would have come in third. His troubles with his campaign are detailed here (Mr. T has more to say, since he actually lives in the district), but also that formerly Republican district is rapidly becoming Democratic. He can't be too happy to run in a place like that.
NB - In their continuing quest to pretend that there is no election coming up, there is nothing in this morning's Star about Bruce Wheeler, at least not in the on-line edition.|W|P|114814544170203934|W|P|Great, Two Fewer Candidates for Me to Poke Fun At|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/20/2006 02:03:00 PM|W|P|TucsonMark|W|P|Tedski - Are you really surprised about the inane, inept coverage in the Star? But it is up to bloggers as well as others outside the corporate hack media to provide the info to the masses. The Arizona Republic had a small item of note.
The Arizona Republic
May. 19, 2006 12:00 AM
One of two Democrats hoping to unseat Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer dropped out of the race Thursday.
Bruce Wheeler said it would have been an uphill battle to defeat an incumbent while campaigning under the limits of public campaign financing. He added that he also struggled with logistical issues as a Tucson resident.
"Trying to get my name recognition up in Maricopa County, which is about 58 percent of the vote, was a real challenge," said Wheeler, a former Tucson mayor and state representative.
Wheeler's exit clears the way for remaining Democratic candidate Israel Torres.
Brewer faces a primary election challenge from former Phoenix Mayor Skip Rimsza.
local/articles/0519wheelerquits0519.html5/20/2006 08:00:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I gave that dude five bucks...hmmm.5/22/2006 09:29:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|As long as we are discussing losing candidates, how about campaign managers?
Saw a post on the Daily Kos site about Patty's campaign manager, Frank Costanzo, being missing for the last month or so. Does anyone else have info on this? If it's true, it wouldn't seem to be a good indicator for the Weiss campaign.5/22/2006 12:15:00 PM|W|P|GOPinsider|W|P|Gee - maybe Wheeler's decision to drop out had something to do with the fact that the GOP would be able to run ads using tapes of the 911 calls made by Kristin Smith and highlighting his drinking and domestic issues.5/22/2006 02:18:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|I really regret Wheeler leaving the race. His speech at the party meeting a couple of months ago was very good, I really felt that he had more than a desire to serve, he actually had a plan for what he would do if he got elected.
It does clear the deck for Torres though, hopefully he will be able to mount a credible challenge to Jan Brewer (and we do have a wildcard that could affect that race-- it remains to be seen how many voters get turned away at the polls on primary day (Sept. 12) in accordance with Brewer's rules, but they are her rules and if a lot of people, who may for example have moved since they registered to vote are turned away during the primary and we can get them to vote in the general, they may be angry enough to take it out in that race. This is the kind of 'wildcard' that is more likely to be a zero than a jackpot, but it's a complete unknown at this point so it's worth taking the time to remind everyone ahead of the primary that the new voter I.D. requirements were written according to Jan Brewer's interpretation.5/22/2006 07:46:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|It is my understanding that no one gets turned away. If you don’t have proper ID you vote a provisional ballot and then you have a few days to go down and provide ID to the Recorder. Now, you may not like that system but you should not misrepresent the facts.
There have already been a few elections with the new rules in place. According to the information that I read, in the Pima County election on May 16th about 150 ballots were provisional because of ID requirement. Certainly an inconvenience for those involved but not a huge percentage of the 120,821 people who voted.
Go Jan!5/20/2006 09:16:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In the last couple of days Mike Hellon has debuted a new ad where he touts his expierence as Ronald Reagan's Arizona mahout (a tough political assignment, I'm sure) and declaring himself a tough-guy on border issues. This is may mean he has given up on his scuffle with Steve Huffman over moderate Republican voters.
A few months back, there were allegations that Hellon's ex-wife, Sen. Toni Hellon, tried to torpedo the Rio Nuevo-TIF bill, since it was Rep. Huffman's baby and this would somehow knock the legs out from his campaign. Yeah, don't ask me how exactly this was supposed to have worked. I doubt there are many voters whose votes are hinging on whether Huffman can pass tax increment financing. The fact that you are asking me what the heck "tax increment financing" is makes my point.
But, many moderate Republican contributors and movers are in the business community (shock!) and do care about this issue and have reservations about Sen. Hellon's tactics. They have taken it out on both Hellons by backing Huffman. This has left the pro-choice and relatively moderate Hellon with little support among the group of Republicans that he was counting on in this primary.
So, it looks like Hellon is left to make feints toward the dexter side of his party. He can't out do Randy Graf on immigration though, and I have doubts that he even would want to. Graf seems to have the conservative votes sewn up, and I wouldn't be suprised if he went after moderate voters over the next few months.
Also, how sincere are the "values" Republicans going to think he is about this anyway? He lost his position in the state Republican Party two years ago because of his and his ex-wife's social views. It is unlikely that rhetorical moves in the more conservative direction will excite the activists enough to get him their support.
I guess this gambit would work, a majority of neither group but enough for a narrow 38% or 39% victory, but Huffman and Graf are so strong right now. The more likely scenario would be that more Republican leaders pressure Hellon to get the heck out.|W|P|114814318223181525|W|P|Mike Hellon's New Ad|W|Pemail@example.com/20/2006 07:58:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|fascinating.5/19/2006 06:10:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I hadn't commented on Bush's Monday immigration speech. I could come up with some convuluted explanation like I wanted it to sink in or something. Naw. Just laziness, what can I say?
As much as I hate to give him credit, I want to give him a few props for the tone of the speech. Even though I am doubtful about some of his proposals, he avoided the nasty rhetoric that many in his party have used in this debate. I wish he would have stepped up a few months ago and use his position to keep the debate rational.
I'm not comfortable with using the National Guard. I have concerns about militarization (although the fact that they will not actually be on patrol sits a bit better with me), but also I share the concerns of governors like Ted Kulongoski and Arnold Schwarzenegger about overstretched guard units, especially since this looks to be a bad fire season in the Western states. By the way, wasn't this whole National Guard idea pooh-poohed by the administration when Janet Napolitano and Bill Richardson suggested it?
Does the technology exist yet for a reliable and cheap "biometric ID card"? A minor point, to be sure, but I have already heard interviews with a few experts who have said that we may not know how to make them yet.
The rest of his plan will involve a great deal of legislative arm-twisting. Although the knock from many on my side against Bush is that he is an "imperial president," when he comes to domestic issues, he has prefered to let congress take the lead. The President had largely (at least in public) stepped back from this issue except for a few speeches, so people like James Sensenbrenner felt they had the green light from the White House for hard line immigration measures. To pass his guest worker measures, the President is going to have to stand up to many on the right wing of his own party. If he wouldn't stand up to them for one of his best friends (Harriet Meiers), who is to say he'll put up any fight on this one?
He will lose a lot of Republicans on the issue, and may need to actually talk to Democrats. Imagine that!
I also wonder what sort of stink bomb this throws into our local Republican primaries. Although the entire Republican congressional delegation signed letters opposing "Protect Arizona Now," many of them, particularly J. D. Hayworth and Jon Kyl, have now been painting themselves as pro-enforcement and anti-guest worker. (By the way, when will someone ask Hayworth why he opposed PAN, but now criticizes Napolitano for supposedly not enforcing it?) This now puts them in a position of running against the President. I would venture to say that Jim Pederson is now closer to the President on this issue than Kyl is.
Randy Graf has his reaction on his site. Graf, some of you may remember, hung a picture of the President upside down in his office when he came out for a guest worker program two years ago. He criticizes the president's proposal for not going far enough, complete with a tortured baseball metaphor (isn't he a golfer?).
He also points out that the Republican congress hasn't fully funded the 9-11 Commission, or even the President's, targets for hiring new Border Patrol agents. This is a valid criticism, and can be laid at the foot of the President, for not pushing congress on this issue, but mostly the Republican leadership in congress for not fully funding even the President's requests. I know, there were were probably some giveaways to the pharmaceutical industry or bridges to Alaskan hamlets that were far more important.
One last thing: was the dune buggy picture a good idea? Or is it Mike Dukakis in the tank?|W|P|114804775828694928|W|P|The Good Yuma Man He Sees Everything Like This|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/19/2006 07:56:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|It's hard for me to think of Bush-lite as a centrist, but on this issue he comes as close to the middle as he ever has. Let's hope he finds the backbone to stick to his guns rather than cave to the extreme side of his party.
The dune-buggy image seems funny to me, but not nearly as bad as the Dukakis tank picture.5/19/2006 08:15:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|I am beginning to wonder whether the average person's head is about to, if not already, spin on the border issue. Guest workers, build a wall, no maybe a fence in places is ok, more troops, more border patrol, amnesty, crack down on employers, immigrants protesting in the streets, immigrants dying in the desert, "Humanitarian Aid is not A Crime", undocumented immigrants taking American jobs, undocumented immigrants taking jobs Americans don't want, should be in line and waiting their turn. It is enough to give a guy and a gal a headache...especially policy wise and it also leads me to believe that what a voter is going to crave is a simplistic answer to a complex problem and that will be what is rewarded.
I am wondering if all of this is going to lead to super big voter fatigue. I mean, both, parties are falling into the "Solomon Trap"...compromising to please everyone...and in the end pleasing no one.5/19/2006 08:46:00 AM|W|P|eckeric|W|P|One last thing: was the dune buggy picture a good idea? Or is it Mike Dukakis in the tank?
The first thing I thought was:
Bush: Oh no, Speed Buggy, we are late for our photo op!
Speed Buggy: Vrooma-zoom-zoooom!!5/19/2006 09:03:00 AM|W|P|union guy|W|P|According to polls done right after the speech, more people are now supporting the President's immigration policy then before, but 71% of the increased support is coming from people who believe immigrants should have a path to citizenship. The conservatives aren't budging.5/19/2006 09:19:00 AM|W|P|Jeneiene Schaffer|W|P|This is another case of Dems seizing a chance to 'get along' and calling Bush's border militarization plan 'centrist' What the f***...
What is sane or rational or even centrist for that matter about a three walled border? I see no mention in your post about the severe environmental impacts this will have.
I'm beginning to feel like I'm living in Wonderland with the conservatives against Bush and the Dems calling him 'centrist'. The list just grows for why I've left the Dems for the growing ranks of Independents. In it's hungry quest to beat Bush by becoming Bush, Dems will just end up looking more and more weak, silly, and irrellevant.
And, I see this happening too in Tucson-most recently with the RTA (getting along with car dealers and developers) and now with the increased militarization of the border. You're losing your way, folks..and pretty soon you won't be able to find your way back and less people will care if you do.5/19/2006 12:02:00 PM|W|P|Jeneiene Schaffer|W|P|"Does the technology exist yet for a reliable and cheap "biometric ID card"? A minor point, to be sure, but I have already heard interviews with a few experts who have said that we may not know how to make them yet."-Tedski
So, do the Dems now support Big Brother's efforts to track our movements and curtail even further our civil liberties? Creepy!If we do this to the Mexicans then we're next.
We must call for the repeal of N/CAFTA, because that is what is causing desparate people to risk their lives to come here. Flooding the Mexican market with our cheap corn and soy puts their indigenous farmers out of work, and is only one example of the trade imbalances this 'free' trade has wrought. And, no amount of Mad-Max style of border control is going to overcome that.5/19/2006 12:33:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Jeneiene- I realize that maybe this doesn't fit into your whole "all you Democrats are weakneed sell outs" meme, but I never said I supported the ID card, and I don't support the ID card. I also never said I supported all of Bush's plan. Or any of it, for that matter.5/19/2006 12:50:00 PM|W|P|union guy|W|P|I do support some of Bush's plan. His plan includes a path to citizenship for the 12 million hard working people that are already here who fear everyday that their families will be ripped apart. His plan includes a guest worker program so people can come here legally (which every immigrant I've talked to in recent weeks would much prefer if it was a real option).
I don't support a wall or more troops on the border. But if you polled the 12 million workers that are already here and the millions more that want to come here and asked them if they were willing to have a wall and more troops on the border in exchange for a path to citizenship and a legal way for people to come here and work, I'm positive they would allow the wall to be buildt and troops to be put on the border.5/19/2006 02:14:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|What UnionGuy said made me think a little more about Jeneiene's points and, again, the Solomon Trap.
Bush is posing a plan that everyone gets something, but has to put up with some things they really don't like here. Business (which is worried about the conservative stance by some in the Republican party), some Democrats, and some Latin-Americans get a guest worker program, but to do this we have to take a wall across our border, troops on the border, and more and more dollars chasing a problem that I am not sure is worth that much money. There is much more to be done yet on these bills...to be sure...but is it always worth it to go along to get what you want when you have to take something that is pretty nasty with it?
Eh...but that is the art of negotiation. What I wonder is whether Democrats are now negotiating on the turf of Republicans and are reacting to their proposals...and not vice versa?5/19/2006 02:58:00 PM|W|P|union guy|W|P|As progressives, how do we tell 12 million hard working immigrants that we had a chance to keep you together with your families in the country that you wanted to live in, but we chose not to do it because we thought the wall was too expensive?5/21/2006 12:14:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Unionguy:
I would say that we wouldn't have to worry about that at all. I don't think the Republicans have the guts to expel and deport 11 million people. In fact, after seeing Congressman Norwood (Ga-R) on "Meet the Press" today, I believe that they fear this issue like the plague. His stance was essentially tough border enforcement...and then the status quo. He backed off fast from deportation...in part...because his district benefits from the hidden illegal immigrant. His district, interestingly, is filled with chicken processing plants that bring immigrants into the plant from camps in the countryside...on buses with tinted windows.
They are hypocrites...they are using this issue to scare Americans in districts that have less than 5% Latin-American population. They speak one way to American...and yet another to the business folks using this labor who pay their campaign bills.5/21/2006 12:20:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...very interesting...Lindsey Graham of SC-R was up against Congressman Norwood. He has a moderate, pro-business take on immigration. He has been working for years to diversify the Republican party and it came out in his language and rhetoric today.
I look for McCain to choose Graham as his running mate...and to appear with him a LOT early. South Carolina squashed McCain last time...he will need Lindsey Graham to get through the South.5/21/2006 05:11:00 PM|W|P|union guy|W|P|Kralmajales,
Immigrants already worry about it, because it happens all the time. Just a few weeks ago 35 families in Phoenix, and 500 nationwide, were broken apart by ICE when they had family members arrested and deported. It happens everyday. Immigrants need a path to citizenship and legalization now. Simultaneous mass deportation might not happen, but our current immigration laws create broken families all the time and, as progressives, we need to work to find a solution.5/18/2006 05:57:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I waited after I saw a transcript to post this, since I wanted to make sure I heard right. Keith Olbermann had on his show Col. Jack Jacobs, one of the ubiquitous retired military experts that find employment on our various cable news networks.
The subject came up of how exactly the national guard plan will be implimented. Col. Jacobs pointed out that there will probably be a call for volunteers. And he said something that I found disturbing:
Secondly, it's very interesting, if we're going to go out there and recruit people to go down and assist the Border Patrol through volunteerism and you'll get quite a few of them. These will be people who are unemployed or underemployed, as I mentioned before. The large proportion of those people are not European white people. They're going to be—they're going to be, many of them, immigrants themselves, they'll be people of color and so on, and so out of proportion to their numbers in the National Guard, you're going to have Hispanic-Americans and black-Americans on the border and that may cause a problem. The good news is we're probably not going to give them guns, they're only going to be an—in administrative jobs and they‘re not going to be face-to-face with the illegal immigrants. So, Col. Jacobs, what exactly do you mean by this? Are we "safer" if we only issue guns to white folks? Are blacks and Hispanics less loyal, less patriotic and less likely to follow orders?
Shh...don't tell Col. Jacobs how many Hispanics are already in the Border Patrol. And they are issued guns too.
|W|P|114795783900078595|W|P|Olbermann on Monday|W|Pemail@example.com/18/2006 10:42:00 AM|W|P|Ruben|W|P|Wow,
I guess the 41 Hispanic Congressional Medal of Honor winners could not be trusted. If I ever meet this man in the streets I am going to put a world of hurt on him. Is this guy an idiot who does he think works in Border Patrol only nice corn fed kids from Iowa? Hispanic, Black, white reservists are all very professional. I can see now why this guy left as a Colonel, and did not make it to the next rank.5/18/2006 04:35:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|According to Molly Ivins, the military has done more for peacefully improving race relations then anything else.
But it did not help with this guy.5/18/2006 06:03:00 PM|W|P|Morg|W|P|Lizzy,
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle "Mexican"?
You just got finished slamming me for "imposing beliefs" on you for the exact same sort of deduction.
I guess it's a one way street here.5/18/2006 06:06:00 PM|W|P|Morg|W|P|It's funny that this sort of, once removed, suggestion makes the post but the Dem who is overtly racist at the link below gets nary a mention. More hipocracy methinks...
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060513/NEWS02/605130365&SearchID=732446276044965/18/2006 07:43:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, the Alabama Democratic party is unfortunately, still has a significant number of racists. Not a big suprise. There are counties there where no matter what your views, you register Democrat or there is no chance for you to vote for the sheriff. Ask the guy who he voted for last time for president...I'm willing to bet that he didn't vote straight ticket on that one.
I know the State Chairman there, and he is not exactly happy that this guy is running as a Democrat. By the way, the Republicans had a Senate candidate out there a few years ago who said that the abolition of slavery contradicted the Bible.5/18/2006 09:02:00 PM|W|P|Morg|W|P|I never heard of that. Can you provide a link? Since were one-upping, the historic home of the KKK is the Dem party as you are probably aware. The reason for this is that there was once a Republican President who freed all the slaves. AND, AND, AND, the first black pres will be Republican. We are still deciding if it will be Condi or Powell.5/18/2006 09:23:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The internet is weird. I found this while trying to locate a website regarding the temporarily implemented student tracking program created in the late 90s.
It looks at people's bias regarding immigration. Pretty interesting.5/18/2006 11:51:00 PM|W|P|Ruben|W|P|I think you are all jumping the gun. We dont know what party this Colonel represents. What we do know is that he is an idiot. Every party has idiots Republicans have David Duke, and Strom. Democrats have Wallace, and whatever guy from Alabama you are talking about. You cant control everyone in your organization, just like the military cant control everyone that puts on a uniform. That does not mean that if a racist is in the military that the military is racist. It means that the person is freaking idiot.5/19/2006 01:18:00 AM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Something else that is insulting-- the idea that the only reason why they expect to meet their goal is because they can find enough people to volunteer (means you don't get paid) who are unemployed or underemployed.
I guess he is worrying up front that they won't find enough volunteers who consider a call to volunteer on behalf of their country to be worth anything at all.
Just an observation, I can see why the whole race issue is insulting, but even if you took the racial part out of it, the comment he made would still be insulting.
As for the racist in Alabama, yeah, they are all over down there. I've been there. Segregation was only really broken about a generation ago (and in some places, the ghosts of segregation are still a bit more than ghosts), and there are still plenty of people there who wish it would come back. But don't blame it on the Democrats-- the real reason why the Republicans have taken over Congress is that the solidly conservative Democratic south has become the solidly conservative Republican south. Attitudes haven't changed, just party affiliation in regard to high office (Senate, Congress, Governor and President). This has allowed the Republicans to gain the upper hand despite the fact that states that used to be Republican bastions (such as Vermont, New Jersey, Illinois and California) have moved to the Democrats. Interestingly enough, of the 20 states that Al Gore won when he lost the close 2000 Presidential election, twelve of them were carried by Republican Gerald Ford when he lost the close 1976 election. So much of the nation has actually become more Democratic, but the south has made the difference here, being an entire region that has changed parties, as opposed to individual or small groups of states.5/19/2006 02:32:00 AM|W|P|Morg|W|P|eli,
I reject your assertion that the south is racist. I've spent quite a bit of time there and have never seen ANYONE at ANY time so much as look at a person of another race funny. If anything they take pride in being the "Cradle of Civil Rights".
Ruben, you forgot to mention former KKK Grand Wizard, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the most senior Dem senator.5/19/2006 02:36:00 AM|W|P|Morg|W|P|...and Dem Gov George Wallace who stood in the school house door to bar the entry of black students.5/19/2006 05:59:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Morg-
Come on! The most ridiculous moment, for me, of the last Republican convention was when Rod Paige blamed "segregationist Democrats" for all the problems in the black community, when his own party has counted on those formerly segregationist Democrats becoming Republicans so that they can carry the South. Yes, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and Trent Lott started as segregationist Democrats, but what did they later become?5/19/2006 06:06:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Yeah...Byrd was in the Klan 60 years ago, in the mean time, Lott and George Allen still have ties to segregationist and pro-confederate organizations. This is the silliest sort of straw-man argument. You can do better than this, Morg.5/20/2006 04:14:00 AM|W|P|Morg|W|P|Ted,
You seem to be claiming that racism is a thing of the past for Democrats.
I have already highlighted Larry Darby to you. How about Ray Nagen, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan?5/20/2006 07:07:00 AM|W|P|Morg|W|P|One more thing, which party advocates racism as public policy? You guessed it, Democrats.5/21/2006 11:12:00 PM|W|P|Ruben|W|P|Sorry all I was at a wedding in Tennessee. Morg you have been drinking the Rush Limbaugh kool aid. It does not matter what you say and who in the past was in the KKK in the end the when the racists vote for a party in the last twenty years they have voted Republican.
As for your great anectdotal history of your time in the South, let me remind you, and this maybe tough for an officer to understand, that you are neither omnipresent nor omniscient. You must have not been aware Mr.Byrd being dragged behind a truck in Texas for being black. Lets not forget the suburb of New Orleans that did not allow the largely black refugees to escape through their largely white town after Katrina. Morg you are not a racist, and a majority of the Republican party is not racist but it is in my opinion that the Republican at times tries to appeal to the racist base.5/22/2006 02:57:00 AM|W|P|Morg|W|P|ruben,
You're a nice guy and I like you, but you should read my posts. First of all, I was enlisted for the full 8.5 years in the SEAL Teams. Secondly, You are absolutely wrong about the racist thing. It is a much bigger problem in the Democrat party. See my last two posts on this topic.5/17/2006 09:15:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|My previous take:
The scorched earth campaigns against the previous two transportation questions had poisoned the waters against any transportation plan for the forseeable future.My take now:
People were tired of the arguments about transportation in our community and were desperate for a solution that incorporated elements from both sides of the debate.|W|P|114792593941569577|W|P|Yesterday's Results|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/17/2006 09:36:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|My take:
A lot of money will be collected. Some of it will get lost in the bureaucracy and the rest will be spent on disrupting a lot of small, local businesses that give Tucson some charm, lots of dust will be stirred up, and when they finish re-paving most roads will fill right back up with even more cars. What a great solution.
Oh, and there will be a trolley line where bus service would have worked just fine.5/17/2006 11:02:00 PM|W|P|Jeneiene Schaffer|W|P|My take:
Another scorched-earth campaign calling everyone against this bad plan a 'CAVE' person made impressionable folks buckle under the strain of not supporting kids and old people.
Dems once again being shifty and supporting *anything* to get along.
This 'plan' will not solve the traffic problem. Wider roads brings more cars. Duh and double duh.5/17/2006 04:06:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Rep. Raúl Grijalva will be talking about immigration tonight on NBC Nightly News. That is, unless some very important story breaks about Kevin Federline or Natalee Holloway.|W|P|114790730989691447|W|P|NBC Nightly News: Be There!|W|Pemail@example.com/17/2006 07:55:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P| video I think. 5/17/2006 07:59:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A letter went out to Democratic activists yesterday attacking Councilmember José Ibarra. Most of the charges are rehashed from charges already in the media.
The letter criticizes Ibarra for an "assault on his secretary's reputation," but includes unfounded personal attacks on Ibarra's reputation.
Ibarra isn't up for re-election this year, and hasn't said if he is running for re-election in 2007. The letter went out to Democratic party activists, who are unlikely to turn on a twelve year incumbent with a progressive record. It also went out to people, like me, who don't even live in Ibarra's West Side ward. Given all of this, it seems like this has nothing to do with actual, productive politics, but merely a personal attack aimed at humiliating Ibarra. This has no place in Tucson politics.
The writers give only one clue to their identity:
The two of us have worked for the City for almost 30 years. We have seen them all come an [sic] go. We have watched Mr. Ibarra for years. We used to laugh at his immaturity. Now we are offended by his irresponsibility. That is why we felt the strong need to send this statement.They felt a "strong need" to send the statement, but they apparently didn't feel the "strong need" to sign it. If you want to make charges like this, stand behind them. If you lack the cajones to do so, don't waste the postage.|W|P|114787887599460485|W|P|Such Bravery!|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/17/2006 09:22:00 AM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Hint #2: This is someone who has or can obtain a list of Democratic activists, including their addresses.
I agree with you though, these sorts of anonymous 'hit' pieces should have no place in politics.
It smacks of Nixonian dirty tricksterism.5/17/2006 09:59:00 AM|W|P|George Tuttle|W|P|I received it last night and had a good laugh with it.
Typical chickenshit manuever, I can only guess who did it.5/17/2006 10:41:00 AM|W|P|Tom Prezelski|W|P|You know, no one has brought up the fact that Rep. Prezelski's HB 2796 (motorized electric; gas powered bicycles) sailed through final passage in the Arizona House of Representatives on Monday. Again, there was not one single vote in opposition.
No praise at all. Woe is me.
Oh yeah? Let's see you get something passed, buck-o.5/17/2006 02:26:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I don't worry, since I hear the governor is eager to veto this unprovoked assault on Arizona's working families.5/17/2006 02:27:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|And, I have passed something...why, I helped author and pass the city's regulations on a-frame and portable signs.5/17/2006 03:32:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Tom I am quite sorry but your post is woefully off topic and that apparently is not appreciated by many who comment here.5/17/2006 04:09:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Go Kid, hit him where it hurts.5/17/2006 05:06:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Well Ted, it is the serious things in life that matter.5/17/2006 07:47:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Kudos to you Tom, would you like a cookie or some other baked good?5/17/2006 07:47:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|But of course Ted's achivement is far far greater in magnitude, he gets free tickets to a concert of his choice.5/17/2006 10:10:00 PM|W|P|Mexilina|W|P|SO..About the letter.. why are we off topic?? Just because I don't post often doesn't mean I don't read..
I agree w/Ted. An argument must contain factual information, and not focus on personal attacks.
Having said that, Congratulations, Tom, on doing the job that you are paid to do! We are proud that you are doing your duty.5/18/2006 04:19:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Why do we have to be on topic?5/16/2006 05:23:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I have no idea what Minuteman Chris Simcox's military experience is. He must have enough that he feels he can criticize the national guard as "trained desk jockeys," as he did this morning on KUAZ. He said that he thought these "desk jockeys" can't handle the "dangerous" situation on our border.
I'd like for Simcox to tell the families of Spc. Jeremiah W. Robinson, Sgt. Howard Allen, Spc. James Holmes and Sgt. Elijah Tai Wah Wong, all Arizona Guardsmen who died in Iraq, that they were just poorly trained desk jockeys that couldn't handle danger.
What a total ass.|W|P|114782610270473815|W|P|Chris Simcox Disses National Guardsmen|W|Pemail@example.com/16/2006 07:48:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Unfortunately a lot of people think little of the National Guard when they have been doing a really good job in Afghanistan and Iraq without everything they need.
I am not surprised that this guy said that though...he seems to be a few bricks shy of a full load.5/16/2006 11:00:00 PM|W|P|Michael|W|P|I'm simply delighted by Simcox's comments. The Far Right is pulling out the stops to discredit Bush's attempt at framing a compromise.
This is one of the few, but increasingly frequent times when we get to watch the GOP coalition beat on each other and embarrass themselves in the process.5/16/2006 11:34:00 PM|W|P|elRanchero|W|P|Bush has more military experience them Simcox. Simcox has said he tried to enlist in the military and the border patrol post 9/11 but he was too old (I think he is 44 or 45 now.
BP cut off was 37--it's now 40. Don't know when the change was made and if his story jives.
You missed an exciting Mayor and Council tonight. Shirley Scott outed a wannabe bar owner as having a record of DUI's and she chastised him as violating the 12 steps. I think she violated the second A.
And Roy Warden was there to tear up a Mexican flag and said he would shoot people in the face with a shotgun during the call to audience.5/17/2006 07:14:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Yeah...Ray Warden makes Simcox look like Mathatma Ghandi.
What the heck prompted that?5/17/2006 09:07:00 AM|W|P|elRanchero|W|P|People were there to complain about the City's handling of April 10th counter-protestors.
Warden et al were there to snicker, cough repeatedly, boo, and generally act as middle schoolers when people they didn't like testified.
Russ Dove gave an impassioned speech about "watch(ing) as this county has been invaded by a foreign culture."5/17/2006 09:30:00 AM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, if Simcox really feels that way, why not suggest that he and the 'minutemen' volunteer to replace a guard unit full of 'desk jockeys' on patrols in Anbar province?
It all defends on how you pronounce 'minutemen.'
Accent the first syllable:
minute: sixty seconds.
Accent the second syllable and draw out the vowels:
minute: very small.
In Spanish, you could make this much more clear.5/17/2006 06:32:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Eli! Hahahahaha.
And now I want to go to the next Tempe City Council meeting to see what happens. Especially with the Barb Carter controversy.5/16/2006 05:04:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This morning on C-SPAN:
Caller from Arkansas: For someone to take -- to hold an office and take the oath of that office, and then refuse to uphold the laws of this nation, to me you ought to be tried for treason and hanged.
Host: Thank you, caller. Congressman?
Rep. Raúl Grijalva: I don't know how -- well, if well it's a reaction to that, I'd prefer not to be hanged.I'd like to point out to Raúl that the proper word would be the participle "hung."|W|P|114782491194031959|W|P|Great, Next He'll Sing That Marty Robbins Song|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/16/2006 05:27:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Picky picky!5/16/2006 06:34:00 PM|W|P|Morg|W|P|Ted,
Isn't a gerund a verb ending in "ing" and acting as a noun. Like… "Margaret Sanger loves aborting"? Aborting would be the object.
Also, when talking about execution, "hanged" is proper no?
Pedro hung sheetrock all day.
Pedro was hanged by eugenicists.
Right?5/17/2006 08:34:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|Raul and morg are right. It is 'hanged.'5/17/2006 09:03:00 AM|W|P|Ms. Tucson|W|P|I thought it was a good reaction to an obviously deranged caller. Raul did good :)5/17/2006 06:58:00 PM|W|P|Morg|W|P|5/17/2006 06:59:00 PM|W|P|Morg|W|P|Ted,
What is this "1984"? Embarrassing history is just edited out of the books without acknowledgement? You know, Stalin did that.
Lizzy, are you a Stalin fan too?5/17/2006 07:01:00 PM|W|P|Morg|W|P|So, what's the verdict on "hung"? Is that going to get erased too, or are you just going to let that one "hang".5/16/2006 04:59:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|As it turns out, Jim Pederson did give $2000 to Edward Kennedy's campaign. I missed that in my search on Open Secrets. That's still $2000 to one out of four of the named candidates, and it is a far cry from the "millions of dollars" claimed in the ad.
To their credit, the Pederson campaign called me only a few hours after I made the post to correct me.|W|P|114782404919265074|W|P|A Correction|W|Pemail@example.com/16/2006 05:04:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|that's commendable and all - correcting your post. But shouldn't they be more concerned about giving that sermon to someone who isn't in the choir?
[...meanwhile, time ticks away in the ever quickening media cycles....]5/16/2006 05:27:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Bored, everyone reads this blog...Even people outside of AZ.5/17/2006 08:37:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|Oh really??? Then I guess they can stop wasting money on TV ads and just post their crap here.
You need to get out more.5/17/2006 06:34:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I was at the Dentist today, does that count?5/16/2006 07:19:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|My polling place is an Odd Fellows Hall. Make from that what you will.
I am voting for all four ballot proposals. I have to say I have serious reservations about 1 and 2. I am concerned that the transit proposals may not get funded until after the roads get built, and road projects always seem to go over budget. But, they managed to get Carolyn Campbell and Jim Click to agree on something, they probably both like it, and both hate it. Sometimes compromise is necessary.
I disagree with my fellow blogger Daniel Patterson, who asks for a no vote on 2. The trouble with this is that the city isn't authorized to use a gasoline tax. Opponents of both Bob Walkup's "All Roads" plan four years ago and Steve Farley's "All Transit" plan two years ago also brought up the funding issue. This issue is a sort of strawman, since cities are very limited in their taxing options, and hoping that the legislature authorizes Tucson to levy a gasoline tax is quixotic.
One agrument I've heard against 1 and 2 has been the lack of public input. This argument would be better if it came from people who participated in the public process that existed. One prominent opponent, for example, reportedly showed up to one meeting, read a statement, and left. That isn't exactly contibuting to the discussion. The words "lack of public participation" must in their minds mean "I didn't get my way."
I am more excited about 3 and 4. The city needs a new psychiatric hospital. I am disapointed with John Kromko and Dave Devine, who consider themselves progressive, working so hard against a project that benefits the most desperately needy of our community. I'd be more willing to listen if they had anything resembling an alternative solution.|W|P|114779052543257281|W|P|Vote Today|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/16/2006 08:40:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Respectfully to Ted. I, as many of you know, oppose the RTA plan, but have voted for 3 and 4. There are many reasons why...and I did make my voice heard on this issue...it didn't matter.
1st. Despite the good intentions of Steve Farley and Carolyn Campbell, I think the power brokers did a far better job of negotiating. We are getting some more needed bikes lanes, some bus service, and a street car that will only go about four miles. For that, we ended up giving up on a lot of things. The plan is road widening heavy. The backers of the plan (developers, car dealers, construction interests) sunk $1 Million dollars into selling the plan to you. Why? Because it is about sprawl, building roads and providing connectors to that people can live farther and farther out in the county. The road hooks ups benefit them because it will make it a little faster (and that is arguable) to get into town. The transportation plan is primarily about expanding roads and it will lead to ANTI-conservation qualities...the blading and grading of our deserts.
Second, I live near Grant Road in one of the amazing neighborhoods near Campbell/Grant. I hate it when people say "no one participated" and then chastize us for it when we were ignored and are going to be very affected by the plan. They completely ignored the neighborhoods around Grant...where the widening occurred. When we finally heard about the widening (this is businesses/neighborhoods that will be affected by it) and mobilized (which aint easy Ted)...the plan was set and going to the voters. These neighborhood associations and businesses should have been approached VERY early and brought into the discussion.
Finally, the CAVE piece. If you all don't know it...the big developers published and mailed a piece calling most of us who are against this plan Citizens Against Most Everything. They blatantly lied and said that we were against families, children, and elderly because we DARED to stand up and argue against it.
We in the Campbell/Grant area feel sold out again. Why should we pay for the sprawl that Marana, Suarhita, Oro Valley, etc. welcomes and even subsidizes. Why should we do what WE can to make their lifestyle choice a little easier?
We can agree to disagree...my only advise to you is to listen a lot to the neighborhoods you are about to represent...and don't attack them like Steve Farley did.5/16/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Now...on 3 and 4...since I just vented my spleen on 1 and 2 and am begging you all to reconsider voting for 1 and 2.
On 3 and 4...
There is a national movement that has entered our court system known as therapeutic justice. It acknowledges that some of the behaviors that harm our society are the result of mental illness and addiction. Courts have been crowded with non-violent offenders who need a system of both therapy and punishment. One does not work without the other. The mental health facility built by a bond would provide a place to help people and relieve the stress on our justice system and county health providers. It is needed and we really will have a better community and society for having it.
Roger5/16/2006 10:07:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Roger-
The CAVE piece was out of line. It probably would have been better directed at the people against 3 & 4 than those who have some valid concerns on 1 & 2.
Ted.5/16/2006 10:41:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|I agree Ted...this piece...the whole campaign was just a little arrogant to me...and then that piece really angered me...it offended me. I was convinced early that it would be very hard to stand up against this plan with so many important people backing it. I was rather cowardly early on while others like Ken O'Day had real freaking guts to speak out and debate it! He gets a profile in courage in my book.
What bugs me about CAVE and the those on the YES side...even the Democratic leaders...as well, is this. I am VERY involved in my community. I do things that I can contribute most with...and many of the things that I do, like others, are not big sexy stuff...but I believe in them. Along with that, I work and have a life. Remember what I am about to say please...and I don't mean to be condescending. So many that you will represent (because I want you to win) will be very good people who don't have time to go to RTA meetings...they have families...they have kids...and are not paid to do these things. The people who will visit you will generally have a big stake in something happening. They have time to visit you. Always think about why? Someone HAS to find out what average folks who don't have time like and desire from government. Participatory democracy is about identifying potential silent stakeholders...trying to include them...or at least have someone speak for them. I hate it when we sometimes say "well you COULD have come out to the meeting...so you lost your say." That is the arrogance of government and democracy that for so long has allowed the powerful and the wealthy to have more voice. They can AFFORD to attend...and if they can't...they will send a lobbyist. This is why the last few plans failed. This is why people mobilized to fight it. A good government official would have considered this, approached them, and really talked. If this plan goes down...this is why.
I am most most disappointed that Steve Farley's name was on that CAVE piece...and after so many of us asked him to disavow his connection to it...we have still heard nothing. It also looks a little odd that he had so many commercials paid for by YES! where he backed it, so many speaking engagements on TV, and now some of the RTA folks on his website as supporters. His name recognition is high right now which will help in the election...BUT...some of us here in LD 28 think we are getting the brunt of this plan...and that he treated us a badly when we dissented. I am not sure I trust his ambition.
Respectfully to you Ted...and to others, I hope you will reconsider voting for the RTA 1 and 2. If you don't like it...and feel unsure...then just vote for 3 and 4...and as I always say...no one will ever know how you REALLY vote when you go in that box (smile).
best to you!
Roger5/16/2006 03:48:00 PM|W|P|union guy|W|P|For those of you that are still up on the air on 3 & 4 (not that there will be many on this blog), SEIU Arizona, which has more than 2000 supporters among Pima County Employees, overwhelmingly endorsed 3 & 4. Pima County Employees, from the health care fields to the courts to our detention officers, strongly believe that the therapeutic approach is key to aiding people in need, reducing crime, and streamlining County Government.
Please vote yes on #3 and #4.5/16/2006 05:01:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|*keeps quiet about her vote for the same ol' same ol'.*5/17/2006 09:19:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Am obviously happy about 3 and 4 passing...and disappointed about 1 and 2. Congrats to the proponents on winning. The best way to lose with dignity is to make your voice heard and to work to help implement the program. Apply for those committees Citizens Advisory Committees...let your voice be heard...and help build that community that you want.5/15/2006 02:42:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Jon Kyl's latest ad says:
Jim Pederson was Democrat Party Chairman. He contributed millions of his personal money to elect liberal candidates and support liberal causes. Liberals like, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, [and] John Kerry.I thought this was odd, since when Howard Dean ran for President, Pederson was State Democratic Party Chairman. It would have been unusual, and big news, if Pederson had supported a candidate in the highly contested Democratic presidential primary in 2004.
(As an aside, a knock that many of Pederson's supporters had against his predecessor Mark Fleischer was that he broke this unwritten rule and actively supported Bill Bradley in the 2000 presidential race.)
Well, as it turns out, he did not. In fact, he gave no money to the candidates listed in the ad. You don't even have to believe me, you can check his contributions on Open Secrets. On there, I found out that Pederson gave money to Elaine Richardson's 2002 congressional race. This ticks me off because I supported Raúl Grijalva that year. He also gave to the Young Democrats of America, an organization so dangerously radical that they once had me on their executive board.
Of course, Kyl's ad weasel-words this claim by saying "liberals like..." so he isn't saying Pederson gave the money to them, but only, to paraphrase Miracle Max, mostly did. I'm sure that their argument would be that by bankrolling party activities, Pederson helped these candidates out. Except in the case of Kerry, this is a pretty far stretch, since neither Kennedy or Clinton ran for election in the two cycles where the party benefitted his largesse.
(Even if Pederson did give to Clinton, this would make him no more liberal than Rupert Murdoch)
Interestingly, prior to becoming party chairman, Pederson funded the "Fair District" initiative which ended up solidifying our gerrymandered hard right majority in the legislature, and the "Clean Elections" initiative, which made the activist-conservative candidacy of Len Munsil possible. You'd think they'd be more grateful.|W|P|114773123649649705|W|P|Pederson Retroactively Endorses Dean for President, I Guess|W|Pemail@example.com/15/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|You know, it’s OK if he did give to Democrats. I have not fact checked the Kyl add but I did go to www.fec.gov and found a lot more donations than you listed.
Some of the people who received money from James Pederson are Jeff Bingaman (10-28-05), Maria Cantwell (6-30-05), Raul Grijalva (9-25-02), Ben Nelson (12-31-05), David Obey (3-30-06), Max Cleland (3-31-02), Tom Harkin (3-27-02), Max Baucus (4-24-02), Harry Reid (8-13-04), Ken Salazar (5-10-04), Steve Owens (3-31-98), Al Gore (3-15-99), Tom Daschle’s PAC New Leadership for America (3-26-03 and 10-12-04), and Edward Kennedy (10-12-04.)
This is only a small sample but it is a lot more than you listed.
There is also a donation of $5,000 to the Arizona Republican Party made on 7-7-97 made by a James E. Pederson of Phoenix, AZ.
Again, this is a free country and Jim can donate to whom he wants but it does appear according to the Federal Election Commission that the Kyl add is at least correct that Pederson donated to Kennedy.5/15/2006 05:13:00 PM|W|P|Morg|W|P|OK, you're losing me. This is a little too "Inside Democrat Baseball" for me...yawn.
Jerrymandered, right-wing...sure, sure...Dems really put a halt to that when they were in power mm-hmm.
On the Clinton contribution item, these days you must specify to which of them you refer. Bill is actually a good conservative bet as he reformed welfare and tempered enthusiasms for power grabs via sexual harassment claims. The other one, speaking her name makes my mouth itch, is a pro-war advocate...soooo...you've got that going for you...5/15/2006 07:10:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|I figured there'd be an ad out like this some months ago when I got a call from a so-called 'pollster' who clicked off the names on that list asking for my opinion of them, then asked me a bunch of 'would you be more or less likely to vote for Pederson if you knew...' followed by a whole bunch of personal attacks (at least a couple of which I knew personally to be either lies or very distorted). So I knew then that was the kind of campaign that Jon Kyl planned to run, and I'm not a bit surprised to hear it on ads today.
Obvious, getting re-elected is more important to Jon Kyl than telling the truth.5/15/2006 07:18:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|One would think that a Democratic State Party chair would give to Democratic candidates.
And I am pretty sure the "independent" part comes from not having a ton of corporate sponsers. But I would have to look up the FEC reports Pederson has filed to be sure.
But I bet my FEC reports are much cleaner. :D5/15/2006 07:26:00 PM|W|P|thinkright|W|P|He has obviously backed liberal Democrats [Emily's List, pro-abortion that was a pass-through to Boxer]. In Pederson's own commericals he calls himself an independant and says nowhere that he is a Democrat. That is why Kyl is just pointing out that is not the case. JP gave lots of money to the libs (that is OK)...he shouldn't be ashamed of who he is or what he believes in.5/15/2006 07:39:00 PM|W|P|Espo|W|P|EMILY's List is not solely for Barbara Boxer, thinkright. To Phxkid, the ad is still dishonest by its nature, and is just another dirty shot by Kyl.
Also Pederson calls himself an independent not to hide party identity, but to show he's more committed to results than to being a rubber stamp like Kyl.5/15/2006 08:32:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|espo the add seems pretty correct to me. It says he contributed to liberals like Kennedy and in 2004 he gave $2,000 to Teddy. Someone named Roberta Pederson from Phoenix, AZ also made a separate $2,000 donation to Edward Kennedy on 10-12-04. Since her occupation is listed as homemaker I am guessing the source of the money care from somewhere other than her homemaking business.
Pederson is going to loose anyway so it doesn’t really matter about the adds.5/15/2006 08:43:00 PM|W|P|Espo|W|P|Yeah but it also claims John Kerry, Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton, none of which he gave to. The fact is it is terribly misleading. Honestly I think Pederson should say "who cares who I gave to, this is just another ludicrous attempt by Jon Kyl to avoid debating the issues. He's afraid because he's got no real ideas and is just a rubber stamp for the Bush administration's failed policies."5/15/2006 08:58:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Anyone who has cleaned a house knows that one should be paid at least $50K a year. Ugh!5/15/2006 08:59:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Also Emily's List is for pro-choice women who raise boatloads of cash. No one outside of antisocial people is pro-abortion.5/15/2006 10:17:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|espo here are just some of the numbers. My understanding of politics is that in giving to a Senatorial Campaign Committee you are helping Senators from that party, i.e. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. See below for the facts. It does appear as if he was supporting Democrats and Democratic Senators. Since Clinton and Kerry fall into that category he was helping them. And that OK. It’s also OK for Kyl to point that out.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $5,000 9-29-00; Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $50,000 10-9-02; Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $25,000 3-26-03; Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $10,000 6-22-01; Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $10,000 9-20-02; Democratic National Committee $20,000 6-20-00; Democratic National Committee $20,000 8-28-01; Democratic National Committee $100,000 12-28-01; Democratic National Committee $100,000 7-30-02; Democratic National Committee $25,000 1-30-03; Democratic National Committee $26,000 6-29-05; Young Democrats of America $2,500 1-18-02; Emily’s List $2,000 5-20-02; Emily’s List $1,000 3-22-04.
For good measure Roberta also joined in. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $26,700 12-5-05.
elizabeth the partial birth abortion procedure is pretty anti social and receives strong support from many in the Democratic Party.
There is a difference between what someone should be paid and what he or she is paid. Lets just say that Roberta is paid $50,000 a year. Then she spent over half of her yearly income in one check for $26,700.5/15/2006 11:13:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|thinkright:
The reason that Pederson calls himself 'independent' is to follow through on what he said right before that that he doesn't care if Republicans have an idea. He is contrasting himself from the traditional partisan back and forth in Washington where people are more interested in denying the other party a victory than they are in solving problems.
His other point is even more blunt. Look at his slogan:
He'll be nobody's Senator but ours.
In this, the year of Jack Abramoff and numerous other Washington corruption scandals, Pederson is pointing out that 1) he is too rich to be bought with money, and 2) he is largely self financing his campaign because then he won't 'owe' anybody anything. Jon Kyl, who has been in Washington either as an intern, a staffer, a lobbyist a Congressman or a Senator for his entire adult life, has by now become such a slave of the system that even if he wanted to change, he could not. Not only because he has lived inside the beltway for so long (even for a time as a kid, when his dad was a Congressman) that to him the people at the Cato institute represent 'middle America,' but because all this distortion has been financed with big money, and those who have been paying it expect something in return.
The big special interests that have paid Kyl a ton of campaign cash and given him numerous paid trips, meals and other perks to vote against the interests of the people of Arizona on everything from negotiating prescription drug prices to allowing warning labels on food, now have him so far in both monetary and other kinds of debt that they own his soul.5/15/2006 11:20:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|espo:
You are right there.
I was in New Mexico when Jeff Bingaman first ran against incumbent Republican Senator Harrison "Jack" Schmitt in 1982.
Schmitt ran some apparently devastating negative ads that attacked Bingaman's role (then as state A.G.) in a couple of cases. The ads were lies. Bingaman stood up and called them lies publically, and corrected the record. Schmitt looked both foolish and viscious at the same time, and his campaign never recovered. Bingaman is today running for his fourth Senate term (and the only time he was really challenged in the interim was in the Republican year of 1994, when he got an 'attack dog' opponent by the name of Colin McMillan, and Bingaman proved he could give it back with interest, and he won by a comfortable margin in a year when Republicans were sweeping their way through New Mexico as they were elsewhere.)
You are right, Espo, you are right-- if Pederson gets the facts together and calls Kyl's ads on the factual lies-- without using the word, 'lie' but just correcting the record, he could really land a body blow to Kyl's campaign-- and after that, any further negative ads by Kyl would not be taken very seriously by a lot of people.5/16/2006 12:15:00 AM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Nice try eli. Now for a reality check. New Mexico is a Democratic state. As of April 18, 2006 the state was 49% Democrat to 33% Republican. Big shock, a Democrat won the senate race.
As of March 1, 2006 Arizona was 40% Republican to 34% Democrat. Please keep Jim in the race. It is that many fewer resources for Janet and Terry.5/16/2006 02:46:00 AM|W|P|Morg|W|P|Liz,
Actually, you are not correct. The co-founder of planned parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was very pro abortion. She was an unapologetic eugenicist who intended to abort as many black babies as possible. Judging by the statistics, her plan has worked out as intended. By the way, we were talking earlier about intentions being defined by results. Ted refuses to post a correction about Arpio until he arrests a smuggler. What does that mean for those who support abortion?5/16/2006 09:17:00 AM|W|P|