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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/31/2006 07:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.6/14/2006 09:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.6/14/2006 09:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.6/14/2006 09:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/31/2006 07:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Jeneiene -

Check the name, I didn't make the comment.6/01/2006 09:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/30/2006 10:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Whoops, that links should be:

13 most ethically challenged congressmen.5/31/2006 04:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/30/2006 11:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/27/2006 11:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.5/29/2006 12:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/27/2006 09:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/25/2006 04:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Geo|W|P|Oh, and I support Giffords.5/26/2006 09:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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
Diary2

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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Tedski|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.5/28/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger anonymous|W|P|This will all be decided in September.5/29/2006 07:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Sirocco-

I was just trying to be an ass.6/01/2006 06:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/25/2006 01:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/25/2006 11:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/24/2006 08:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=64185

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0430gammage0430.html5/24/2006 02:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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.

screaming,
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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/24/2006 10:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/23/2006 02:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/22/2006 04:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger vetdem|W|P|That's good news for the other candidates.5/23/2006 09:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.5/24/2006 07:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/20/2006 02:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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.

Matthew Benson
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.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/
local/articles/0519wheelerquits0519.html5/20/2006 08:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I gave that dude five bucks...hmmm.5/22/2006 09:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/20/2006 07:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/19/2006 07:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/18/2006 10:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/17/2006 09:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/17/2006 07:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/17/2006 09:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Go Kid, hit him where it hurts.5/17/2006 05:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Well Ted, it is the serious things in life that matter.5/17/2006 07:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/16/2006 07:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/16/2006 05:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Picky picky!5/16/2006 06:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Raul and morg are right. It is 'hanged.'5/17/2006 09:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger Morg|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.5/17/2006 06:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/16/2006 05:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Bored, everyone reads this blog...Even people outside of AZ.5/17/2006 08:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/16/2006 08:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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.

Best,

Roger5/16/2006 10:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|*keeps quiet about her vote for the same ol' same ol'.*5/17/2006 09:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com5/15/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Ruben|W|P|Phx Kid,
You have no idea about New Mexico politics. Though registration favors dems it does not mean that it is a democratic state. It has not been a solid democratic state in years. The "Texans" that live along the eastern area of our border are DINO's and have been for some time now. That is how Representative Pierce has won overwhelming victories in District 2. Lets not also forget Heather Wilson has won in District 1 consistently.
I dont how you can call any state Democratic when 2 out of its three congressional seats are in Republican hands. Also before you site the fact the Bill Richardson won by a decent margin remember that so did Gov. Brian Swietzer. I am not crazy enoughto call Montana a blue state. BTW if I remember correctly Bush won NM in 2004? Sounds like democratic mecca to you?5/16/2006 11:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Morg, I have not researched Emily's List, but I would certainly feel if Ms. Sanger was, indeed, "an unapologetic eugenicist" she would also qualify as anti-social.

Arguing the merits of an issue purely on the (selective) results would tend to mean you should favor gun control (which, for all I know, you may, but I believe most conservative voters do not).5/16/2006 12:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Ruben you make some good points and I can tell that you know NM better than I do. But I still stand by my assertion that it is a Democratic state.

Bush beat Kerry by 50/49, a very slim margin of 6,000 votes. Kerry is the last person I would pick to win in NM. A stiff, aloof easterner uncomfortable with regular people. When the Democrats get a decent presidential candidate look for NM to turn blue again.

Their legislature looks to be set up differently that Arizona’s. There are 70 seats in the NM State House of Representatives. The ratio is 42 Democrats to 28 Republicans. Their senate has 42 members with a ratio of 24/18. I am sure some of those Democrats lean a little conservative and I bet some of those Republicans votes toward the middle. It still looks like a Democratic state to me.5/16/2006 01:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Ruben|W|P|Phx Kid,

I know the State Legislature looks very Democratic. But the inside politics unfortunately isn't so. The aloof ness factor of Kerry may have had a factor in Bush winning, but that would only be true if turn out in traditional Dem areas was less than normal, or the vote in those areas went more towars Bush then 2000. If you look at the returns and unfortunately I had to for my job, we lost because Republicans turned out more voters then we did. They (Republicans) did a great job energizing their base. I just think that in this case the only thing to safely say is that this state is truly a purple state. If I had to pick a trendline though it is starting to go more republican due to huge population growth in its suburbs.

Hey morg if you are reading this what unit were you in? I just got back from the sandbox myself.5/16/2006 04:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Tedski says, "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 [and other right wing nuts] possible. "

But elizabeth says, "we like clean elections and want to keep it."

Nothing quite like masochism, is there? It's no wonder the Democratic Party will never get anywhere in this state.5/16/2006 04:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|PhxKid: Intact dilation and extraction is generally done in extreme cases in the third trimester and per Roe v Wade: (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. A ban on the procedure that does not include these two exceptions is unconstitutional and why I, for one, happen to be against the medically inaccurate Partial Birth Abortion Ban. As you should know, I dislike abortions but feel that I have no right to tell another woman how to live her life or her has to bear a child she does not want. As for other Dems who are pro-choice, ask them why they support a woman's choice to have or not have a child at any given point in her life.

Also my point about housework pay is that a woman who does housework might not be paid a salary like you are at your outside the house job, but she works none the less and so would presumably get some compensation for that from a spouse. Part of that compensation could be money that she choses to spend on candidates.

Morg, my prefered name derivitive is Beth or Lizzy.

As for Margaret Sanger being a pro-abortion person, she actually was anti-abortion out of concern for the mother after seeing the result of botched illegal ones as a midwife. She also believed that to reduce abortions, women should have full access to birth control methods such as diaphrams and eventually the pill.

She was however a strong advocate of Eugenics to remove the chances of children born who would lead disadvantaged lives (in other words the handicapped) or in her words in 1932: "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." As such she has been repeatedly taken out of context to prove that she was pro-abortion/racist by the anti-choice movement.

She was responsible for the first clinic to be opened in Harlem to serve black women with proper medical care and was recognized by various figures of the Civil Rights movement to have been a help rather then someone who was trying to prevent blacks from achiving equality in America.5/16/2006 04:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Hey Bored, everyone in D17 likes Clean Elections...in fact both sides are using it!5/16/2006 06:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Sirocco, Sanger was only "antisocial" in the sense that she rejected the established order on birth control and abortion. Eugenics was not such a dirty word as it is now. Her legacy, Planned Parenthood, is achieving her goals beyond her wildest dreams. So, are you saying Planned Parenthood is anti-social?

It was Ted who suggested results are the only things that count as opposed to stated intent. I'm agnostic on the point. But, you libs need to huddle and be consistent for credibility sake.

I absolutely am against gun control. The results of gun control are negative. Have you not read the work of John Lott, Law Prof at Yale (no less) author or "More Guns, Less Crime"?

Ruben, most recently, I was the Executive Officer of the 5th EAMS at Al Mubarak.

Lizzy, do you agree that partial birth abortion is simply infanticide? Is that really better than adoption? Margaret Sanger would be proud of your defense of her eugenic ideals and even segregation. So, count Lizzy as a eugenics/segregation advocate. Any of you other Dems want to fess up? By the way Sanger also said blacks were like weeds and had a "Harlem Project" and a "Negro Project". She specifically targeted them along with Eastern Europeans like Ted.5/16/2006 07:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Morg: Ask the women who get intact dilation and extractions. *I* cannot decide for ANY woman what to do about her life or her pregnancy. That is not my right, nor for that matter yours. But I am sure you would have no issue demanding an answer out of a woman who had one regardless of her feelings on the matter.

And pointing out that yes Margaret Sanger was a Eugencist and quoting her exact words (and the year said) does not indicate endorsement of such ideals. It does however show a respect for the truth that you unfortunately do not seem to have.

Please do not impose beliefs on me that I have not stated I have. Thank you.5/16/2006 11:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Ruben|W|P|Now I dont know much about Marget Sanger and I am not well versed on the feminine Mystique but I still think that being Pro Choice is generally a good policy. I mean it gives choices for difficult situations that we can not account for such as rape, health reasons, who knows what else. The "choice" is not always abortion, the choice I am sure is more often then not is going through with the pregnancy.
Abortion should not be used as a contraceptive, but should be available as a last resort.
As for Planned Parenthood does anyone really think here that we should not have the pill available for women to use? That is the next target after abortion. Planned Parenthood in some areas is the only distributor of the pill. If some women do not get the pill and get pregnant aren't we increasing the possibility that an abortion may take place?
Marget Sanger may have been a heinous bitch and her goals may have been even worse, but that should not taint the resultant organization. If that was true then there are many organizations that we would have to discount today.
Thanks all5/17/2006 11:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Morg,

I am aware the term eugenics didn't have the same negative context pre-WW2 it has obtained post-WW2. Regardless, in modern context (and we are talking modern context, correct? We're not making political decisions based on the era of the 1930's?) anyone arguing seriously in favor of eugenics would be deemed anti-social.

Concerning the use of selective results as the sole means of determining a policy's value, I certainly wouldn't use this standard. Regardless of your agnosticism on the subject, you attempted to appply it to the argument in question, and are incorrect in doing so.

(I feel no need to huddle with anyone on the matter, liberal or otherwise -- selecting some subset of data and drawing conclusions solely based upon that supset is incorrect by any standard).

Finally I havem in fact, read More Guns, Less Crime. The model the author's used for their study was so deeply flawed as to make their results completely meaningless.

If I recall corrctly (it's been some years), the model predicted the means by which most significantly decrease the homicide rate was to decrease the number of older (50+?) black women in a neighborhood. Such a conclusion is laughable on the face of it, and is simply one piece of evidence of the model's flaws. I am sure detailed analysis of it can be easily found.5/17/2006 06:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|sirocco,

I agree. The eugenicist, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was anti-social in both her own historical context as well as ours for different reasons. Planned Parenthood delivers on her anti-social eugenic goals without stating overtly that they favor such outcomes. They simply quietly go on aborting an extremely disproportionate number of black babies while liberals provide all the political protection they need.

Also, you misunderstood the discussion. It was Ted who asserted that results are the only valid gage of intention as opposed to rhetoric. "Selective results" never entered into it. Again, I call for a liberal huddle.

A liberal huddle is necessary because on both points you think you are refuting me without realizing you are reinforcing me. It shows that my conservative label is your only concern and that's consistent with liberals across the board.

I'll take your word that you read "More Guns Less Crime". However, you obviously lost all the data. I recommend you re-read it as your assessment of it is on Pluto.5/17/2006 06:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Lizzy,

I guess I am at a loss for why you are now upset with me. You just agreed that Margaret Sanger is a eugenicist. Your own post was offered as proof of her good intentions. I don’t dispute your quote. It simply says that, like Hitler, Ms Sanger wanted the rest of the gene pool to benefit from the extermination of a minority group. The fact that you posted the quote can only be taken to mean that you are sympathetic and are helping me understand why. Otherwise you would have simply joined me in condemning her and Planned Parenthood. No?

As for Partial Birth abortion, I would never demand anything of a mother who chose to abort her baby. I would say that killing infants is a shocking and obviously immoral thing to do and it ought to be a crime even if their feet are still in the birth canal.

Why is it that you have no sympathy for the individual who is murdered? Bear in mind, this question is only applicable to partial birth abortion. I take no position beyond that procedure.5/17/2006 06:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|ruben, my brother in arms, I sense there is a Republican in you fighting to get out. COME TOWARD THE LIGHT RUBEN! COME TOWARD THE LIGHT!

You have obviously bought into the leftwing propaganda. It's understandable. It's on every broadcast news channel. Here is the deal: birth control is never going to be taken away. Only a tiny minority wants that and half of them are liberal Catholics. Also, abortion in the case of rape and incest is ok with 95% of the American people as a whole and probably 90% of Republicans.

Now ask yourself this: Do you really want to affiliate yourself with poeple who think it's a good thing that 1 in 4 pregnancies is aborted and those abortions are disproportionately minority babies? Aborting and preventing minority babies was the stated goal of the founder of Planned Parenthood, the primary abortion provider? Do you know what partial birth abortion is?

Ask yourself this: will the pool of unskilled, uneducated, minority laborers in the country be better off if the market is flooded with cheap labor from Mexico? Who is trying to slow the flow? It ain't Democrats my friend. They need poor minorities to stay that way so that they can become dependent on the state and vote reliably for Democrats who will keep giving them handouts enough to stay poor and dependent.5/17/2006 06:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ruben, you are right, the attack is on Griswald v CT because apparently even married couples cannot make private family decisions.

And not every woman can take the pill, it has some nasty side affects. That said, women AND men should be responsible regarding sex and if a woman has unprotected sex she should have access to OTC Plan B.5/17/2006 07:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Actually Morg, you accused me of being something I am not simply because I was pointing out exactly what Ms. Sanger actually said and the context of her statements. Telling the truth does not indicate an endorsement of anyone else's ideas. It means that I refuse to let someone twist words into lies. I would do the same with George W. Bush and would expect you to not accuse me of being a non-rich white person hating warmongering neo-con who favors incompetence.

You also are overreacting to my polite way of asking you to not impose beliefs on me that I have not stated. Per Ted's request that we be nice to you, I am being polite.


As for the individual, I do support the individual-the woman. I trust that she is making the right decision since *I* again, do not have to deal with the results of her pregnancy. I never said I liked it and in fact have stated I dislike abortion.

Also, you are imposing beliefs on others with your claim that all Dems/Liberals are happy with 1 in 4 pregnancies (which based on the recent stats from the CDC is more like 1 in 6) ending in abortion. Women do not have access to contraception in the same way that men do (you can just put on a condom) nor is ours always covered by medical plans. In addition, Hillary Clinton (who you may or may not hate for reasons that you should explain if you do hate her) and Harry Reid both have sponsered legislation that would require medical insurance plans to cover birth control pills (for those women who are lucky enough to be able to stand it) the same way that they cover Viagra.5/17/2006 07:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Lizzy,

So you were offering me the quote as a correction to my misquote? What makes you think I had that quote in mind? In case you didn't know, there is more than one quote that makes Sanger a eugenicist.

So, once and for all, you seem to agree that Sanger was a eugenicist who founded Planned Parenthood in order to limit the propagation of the black race. Do you also agree that the abortions provided by Planned Parenthood are disproportionately targeting black babies?

Why do you totally disregard the life of the child in partial birth abortion? You seem unwilling to even mention it in your posts. That's very interesting to me. What could that mean?

As far as imposing beliefs on you, I am doing no such thing. We are having a discussion. Those who keep partial birth abortion legal are permitting the imposition of beliefs and the act of murder. I may "attribute" beliefs to you by deduction from your statements that you may not hold . It is up to you to explain what is accurate. You cannot simply dismiss my deduction by claiming, wrongly, that I "impose" anything on you.

If you rebut my assertion that Sanger is a eugenicist, I naturally deduce that you either don't have a problem with it or you don't believe it to be true. Neither of these outcomes constitutes an imposition of belief on you.5/17/2006 09:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Lizzy,

Why do we impose our values on someone when they kill a baby that is 3 days past birth? Maybe we should not force them to raise the child. Have you ever raised a child? I have a 3 year old and let me tell you it is a lot of work. Maybe we should not force that on people if the do not want it and let them just kill the kid in the name of personal choice and convenience. What is the difference between that and pulling a little girl out of the womb by her feet, piercing her scull with scissors, and then sucking out her brains? I am sorry I am just missing the distinction.

Why are drugs illegal? Why is the speed limit set the way it is?

Why is it that so many Democrats want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens but are all for freedom of choice when it comes to killing babies in the womb?5/17/2006 11:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Ruben|W|P|Morg,
Sorry I have seen the dark side. Six years in the infantry and lots of attempts of indoctrination by biased officers did not work then nor will anything work now.
As for aligning myself with "people who think it is good to kill 1 in 4 children" That is way off base. Abortion is a horrible thing, and as a Catholic I consider it to be a grave sin. Democrats do not "like" abortion we are realistic in understanding that it is unfortunately necessary at times. In regards to life and death late term abortions they should be illegal unless the life and health of a woman is at risk.
Contraceptives may are the next targets of the
christian radical right. The proof can be seen in how they have stacked the FDA with idealogues who ignore science to call the pill dangerous.
More importantly what makes me a Democrat is taking care of the "unskilled labor pool" in this country. Immigration right now is just the latest straw man put up by Republicans. If they wanted to fix it they could. They are in charge of the Senate, House, and the Presidency. It wont change because at the end of the day the Republican party will always go back to its mistress the business lobby. They run the show now and always have been. How else does one explaining the bi polar policy we have towards Cuba and China. We impose barriers on countries that do not have religious freedoms but the worst offender China who has jailed and executed Christians we continue to ship our jobs to. Not only do we let them have our jobs but we have a tax incentive to ship jobs overseas. Yep definetly not crossing over to the dark side. Thanks for the invite though.
Semper Fi,5/18/2006 02:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|ruben, open your mind brother, just for a moment. You are right that many Republicans are too single minded about supporting business. You should recognize though that this support is to the benefit of the working underclass in most cases. Growing the economy is the best way to give every poor person a chance to work and pay their bills. Democrats want you to be dependent on their handouts and become in the process a reliable Dem voter. Republicans want you to work and take care of yourself and be free owing nothing to anyone. This is what they mean when they say "ownership society". The Dem version is simply modern slavery. The Republican version is freedom.

I say “happy” with abortion because such a large segment of abortions go to married middle class couples. There is no restriction on it. There is no reason to have third trimester abortion unless the life of the mother is at stake. The reason the "health" of the mother is too big a loophole for many Republicans is because in states where limits are placed on late abortions, they are ineffective. The number one reason cited for these late term abortions is "depression".5/18/2006 06:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Morg,

I haven't researched the stats, so I will stipulate to their being a disproportionate number of minority abortions as opposed to white. While this may have the effect of seeming to promote Ms. Sanger's original eugenic notions, I would imagine it's a statistical side-effect, explainable by other variables (such as, a disproportionate number of minorities suffering from poverty are poor, or a disproportionate number of teen-age minorities are having children).

As to the question of results being the only true measure of rhetoric, regardless of who originated the idea, you apply it when implying Planned Parenthood somehow supports a eugenic agenda.

Finally, regarding "more Guns, Less Crime", the interpretation of the data is not original to me. A number of critiques at the time pointed out devastating statisical flaws in the model the authors used, and the example I gave was one of the logical outcomes of the model.

The reason the one example I gave sticks in my mind was I found it interesting enough to actually work through the math myself -- their model really _did_ imply the means to achieve the greatest reduction in violent crime was to lower the number of older black women in a neighborhood. There were a number of other major issues as well.5/18/2006 08:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Morg,

I did take the time to do a little poking around to try to find references to the original critiques I read. I couldn't find them, but did find some new ones:


Summarizing the high points:

Using Lott's model, but extending the data through to 2000, a pair of researchers showed no statistical decrease in violent crime, and an increase in proprtyy crime, in states with "shall issue" laws.

Lott later claimed the new data actually supported his initial claims, but this was achieved only by his changing the model.

The same researchers pointed out numerous coding errors in Lott's data, which he initially denied, but later admitted. Including the corrected codes, Lott's initial claims were invalidated. He was able to restore his results only by changing the model (see above).

He may have committed academic fraud by making reference to a survey which was never actually completed.

For the above and other stuff, reference:

http://timlambert.org/lott/


Further, the entire concept of econometric modeling as a means of considering social issues is in increasing disrepute among social scientists. For a brief summary as to why, you might see:

http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm

The views of the author seem admittedly liberal, but his analysis of the problems of econometric models in general, and the Lott and Mustard model in particular, are entirely correct.


You can find the original Ayers and Donohue 2002 counter-study at:

http://www.guncite.com/lott_more_papers.html

(There is also a Lott response to an earier review by Ayers and Donahue, as well as a number of other academic papers on the matter, both for and against the Lott analysis. The majority of later papers, using extended data, conclude the original analysis by Lott and Mustard is flawed. Note I have only read the abstracts so far.).

Finally, the following:

http://timlambert.org/2003/07/0728/

Has links to a number of articles (including many of the same ones) nicely organized to indicate those which support Lott's original findings, and those which seem to indicate against it. In particular, it includes the 2002 Ayers/Donohue study, Lott's 2003 response, and the Ayers/Donohue counter-response. I have only just skimmed these three, but the 2003 Ayer/Donohue paper is pretty convincing at first glance.



Anyhow, if "More Guns, Less Crime" is the basis of your belief that increasing gun access decreases violent crime, it's a poor foundation to rely on.5/18/2006 10:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Ruben|W|P|Morg,
I agree with you hand outs are bad. Please tell the Republicans to stop the welfare checks to the oil business, Halliburton, and many other groups. I like the idea of an expanding economy and more jobs for the poor. Welfare never lifts anyone out of poverty, but the poor did the best under Clinton. Our economy is not doing well today. Working men and women, your middle class America can barely make ends meet. These tax cuts have not helped middle america. Shipping job overseas does not help middle America.
More importantly to me I am a Union Democrat. The Republicans have always tried to destroy Unions. A union job is the only way a decent hard working man or woman could have honorable pay for hardwork. Since moving to this state, and looking at the poor craftmanship of the housing I would highly recommend going union. Besides a strong union would keep out all those scary brown people that are clamoring to our shores for the bountiful welfare state that we have set up here.5/18/2006 05:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|sirocco,

So, you seem to be agreeing with me that Ted should post a correction to his suggestion that Arpio only wants to imprison "migrants" and not smugglers simply because he has not yet arrested a smuggler. Great!

With regard to Lott's analysis, you're attempt to represent your understanding of the statistical methods he used is very poor. I am quite embarrassed for you. Your translation of the wikipedia entry could not have been more transparent. You worked through the math yourself to untangle Lott's multifactorial regression analysis??? OK pal. Had you done that in fact, you would not have produced such an incoherent representation of what you read in wikipedia.

I'll tell you what. Post your work on that and I'll take a look at it. If it jibes, I'll post a retraction.

It's time for you to do some soul searching my friend. If you find that you have to fib to dispose of an argument, maybe there is a problem with your beliefs...why is the Dem party so riddled with dishonesty? That should really give you pause.

Ordinarily, I would not be so blunt. Unfortunately, you leave me no alternative.5/18/2006 05:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Ruben,

I want to help you man...help me help you!

Do you see GM and Ford? They have been killed by unions. Is their death good for workers? Hardly.

Lower the cost of doing business and business grows. More demand means higher wages. More supply (immigration) means lower wages.

Don't get so hung up on labels. That is the propaganda of the fat-cats manipulating you into being "union" or "democrat". Take a second and realize that the "enemy" "conservatives" actually want what is best for the little guy and business together. Libs want dependents.

Malcom X said that welfare was "heroine". He was right. Read Booker T. Washington's philosophy. He was a conservative through and through.5/18/2006 07:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Morg,

I hadn't seen the Wiki entry, thanks for pointing it out. I gathered all my references off Google searches this morning, and nicely pointed them out to you for your own perusal and evaluation.

Before this morning, I was recalling things from memory. The article I initially read sometime in 1999 or 2000 was in a Journal, but I don't recall where.

As for the math, at the time I was working on some statistical modeling software for a research lab at UMC, so I had enough background in it to work through the calculations made by others -- I already noted the critiques were not original to me.

If you can't answer the criticisms made in the various links I gave you, or if you are incapable of following the papers therein, please don't resort to accusing me of prevarication. Please read them (particulary the 2003 Ayers/Donohue article) and then provide support for Lott's argument. I have not found anything printed after that article which provides substantial support for Lott's position.

Regardless of my personal capabilities (or lack thereof), others, who understand the data far better than either you or I, have done a pretty good job of pointing out the flaws in Lott's model.

You, sir, are behaving like an ass. Ordinarily I would not be so blunt. Unfortunately, you leave me no alternative.5/18/2006 08:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Ahhh ... having now read the Wiki article, I see where your thoughts come from. It references the same example I gave (although apparently it's black woman 40+, not 50+, so memory was slightly off), and also points out another significant predictive flaw in Lott's model (that if you both raise the level of unemployment and reduce income you get a reduction in the violent crime rate).

I do see the link to the Dec. 1998 New England Journal of Medicine summary, but that's not what I recall reading. There was a more scholarly analysis which pointed out several predictions which logically followed from the model, but which were clearly not supported by real world data.

You're still an ass.5/18/2006 08:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Morg,

As a final P.S., yes, I do agree it's too much to claim Arpio only wishes to arrest migrants and not smugglers, as I do not believe enough data points exist yet.

If a fair bit of time passes and migrants continue to be arrested while smugglers are not, then that conclusion might be inferred. Currently, it's too soon to do so, IMO.

You, of course, are equally free to retract your (incorrect) inference that Planned Parenthood implements a eugenic agenda. Not that I expect you to do so.5/18/2006 08:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Guys...could we keep it civil...this is getting almost as bad as the "Anyone that doesn't support my CD8 Candidate is a Fascist" arguments.5/18/2006 08:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Tedski,

My sincere apologies, to both you and Morg. I should not have allowed myself to be provoked so childishly.

Anyone who doesn't support Giffords in CD8 is a Fascist! (joke! joke!)5/19/2006 02:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|sure, I'm sorry too.

Tell me, what is the ratio of black abortions in this country to that of white abortions as a percentage of their respective populations? You have brought us back full circle. And are about to demonstrate for me Dem hipocracy. Either Ted posts a retraction about Arpio or you Dems admit to PP eugenic goals. The linkage was Ted's.

You guys go huddle. I'll be over here.5/19/2006 07:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Morg,

First, you make a logical fallacy in stating either Ted must print a retraction, or I have to admit PP is eugenic. Ted is, of course, free to apply his model to Arpio's actions, and apparently his model predicts Arpio's arrest pattern will significantly under-represent smugglers. We'll have to see what actually happens to see how accurate the prediction is.


Doing more research for you in some limited time, I sound the following informative paper:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3422602.html

The upshot, relying on fairly recent data, the authors find the following abortion rates:

Black 49/1000
Hispanic 33/1000
Asian 31/1000
White 13/1000

A pretty significant difference. A large part of this seems to be accountable via poverty (the poor have far higher abortion rates, and more blacks are poor; however, the authors do note blacks have a higher abortion rate across the income spectrum). Also, blacks have far higher pregnancy rate:

Black 115/1000
White 73/1000

Anyhow, looking at table 3 some more, and applying some basic math, we get the following for pregnancies carried to term:

Black 74/1000
White 60/1000

Which implies if the Planned Parenthood "eugenic agenda" is to "promote the master race" it's failing, as blacks are increasing their numbers as a percentage of their base population at a faster rate than whites are.

This conclusion is supported by raw data found here:

http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Journalists/FAQ/Questions/U_S__Birth_Rates.htm

Which clearly shows a greater percentage of black women are carrying their pregnancies than white woman are. (Table, pg. 13)


I suppose one could still argue PP does have eugenic intent, it's simply incompetent at it.


I eagerly await the retraction of your implication PP practices eugenics.


Oh, in poking around this morning I also stumbled on the following 1992 American Spectator article:

http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/american-spectator_eugenics.html

Which discusses Sanger and her eugenic ideas. I suspect you have already read it, but if not I thought you might be interested.


Finally, since you fail to address either the predictive issues in Lott's models or Lott's on personal credibility issues which have come to light since 2000 (all referenced through the links I provided), I am presuming you are no longer relying on Lott as the definitive and final source for all data regarding gun-related issues.

By the way, one concession to Lott -- his data does apparently show (and Ayers and Donohue, as well as other researchers, independently confirm) that, contrary to the expections of gun-control proponents (certainly contrary to my expectations) that making concealed-gun permits more available does NOT lead to any statistically significant increase in violent crime either. (Of course, Lott's claim was it DID lead to significant reduction of violent crime, which is appaarently not the actual case).

... and I think that's it. I have spent way too much time yesterday and this morning looking this stuff up ... although to be fair, a lot of the Lott stuff was actually kind of funny, in a sad sort of way.5/20/2006 04:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|sirocco,

So, you don't think you would be inconsistent to support Ted for using Arpio's results as a means of gauging his intentions while criticizing me for doing the exact same with Planned Parenthood? It's logic like this that makes you a Democrat my friend.

Furthermore, you are again exposing yourself as a pure partisan with no connection to facts, logic and honesty when you assert that I put Lott to you as "the definitive and final source for all data regarding gun-related issues".

This is a symptom of the Democrat disease. Do anything to win. If you go in with the A priori belief that you hold the moral high ground in all cases, then facts, data, logic and intellectual honesty are dispensable tools on the way to achieving the greatest good of acquiring power. This is why Dems rallied to Clinton but Reps sacrificed Lott. This is why Dems see no problem with Ray Nagen but Reps sacrificed Newt. This is why Jackson and Sharpton are taken seriously by the left but David Duke is an outcast on the right.

You earned an ounce of respect when you admitted that the Lott data showed no increase in violent crime. I am re-evaluating the data for myself, but it will take time. I'm not just going to list links from my google search...ahem. Show me that you are an open minded person and I will continue the debate with you.

While I look for more information on the Lott data. Why don't you explain to me why my wife should be denied the ability to defend herself against a rapist as she leaves work after dark. Does she have the right not to be raped? Remember, open mindedness and intellectual honesty are the only things that can move me to your side of the argument. If your argument is logical, I have no problem giving you props.5/20/2006 06:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Sirocco,

Please address the below information. As you can see from the summary, Black and Nagin are effectively dealt with. Don’t be fooled by the volume of disagreement on the net. Focus on the quality. Lott’s work has generated a firestorm because it undermines the conventional wisdom on guns. Also, one of the ways people like Lott are silenced is by talking over him. Whether on a talk-show or in volume of poorly done academic studies, the tactic is the same.

So, show me your open-mindedness and intellectual honesty in your response to the below. Ask yourself, why did the Wiki entry only make reference to the “older black woman” finding and not to the fact that it required the authors discard the vast majority of available data in order to arrive at it. Could it be the disease that causes people to discard truth for the sake of a partisan win?

http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html
Debate between Lott and Douglas Weil of Handgun Control Inc.
Lott points out that Black and Nagin excluded from their test any county of population <100,000 which is 86% of the US. They then went even further when they found the case un-weakened and excluded the entire state of Florida, a concealed carry state.

http://reason.com/9808/bk.polsby.shtml
Daniel D. Polsby is Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law at Northwestern University.
Polsby does a great job of making no prediction as to the final outcome of the debate but states that Lott’s thoroughness is a model for academic debate and wishes his critics would be as thorough and detailed in their responses. His final statements actually suggests the OK Corral scenario that makes common gun ownership unacceptable may be around the corner. To me this indicates he is on the left side of the debate but is intellectually honest enough to admit that Lott’s numbers and conclusions are sound at this point in time.

http://reason.com/0108/fe.re.the.shtml
Written debate between Lott and Robert Ehrlich George Mason University Physicist. Ehrlich is knowledgeable of Black and Nagin’s work, referring to it but fails to reinforce it or endorse it as part of his own assault. Lott effectively and compellingly deals with all of Ehrlich’s statistical criticisms.5/20/2006 08:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Morg,

I can criticize you for the PP attack as you have disavowed the method, yet still chosen to use it. Ted has not disavowed the method. You are trying to have it both ways.
Ted is not.

I did exagerrate your mention of Lott, primarily since you had not yet responded to the matter. It remains true, however, he was the only source you provided, and his work is no longer largely credited academically.

Concerning your wife, you posit a false delimma -- assuming your spouse is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal past, there is nothing even under proposed gun-control laws which would prevent her from getting a permit to carry a gun, or even (in most states) from getting a concealed-weapon permit. It simply wouldn't be quite as easy as it is now for any Tom, Dick or Harry to get a gun on the spur of the moment, at a gun show for example.

Regarding the articles you present -- first, thanks for taking the time to look them up, I appreciate he references. However, I think there is a misunderstanding about the timeline.

The Lott-Weil debates dates to July 1, 1998.

The Polsby article dates to the Aug./Sep. 1998 issue of Reason magazine.

The Lott-Ehrlich debate dates to Aug./Sep. 2001 issue of Reason magazine.

Remember, in 1998 Lott's book had just come out, debate had sprung up and his data and model really hadn't been thoroughly reviewed yet.

By 2001 there were already critiques of his data, and another model had been created with explained the same data trends without finding any linkage to more liberalized concealed weapon permits. However, at this time Lott's model was as good as any other theory out there.

Without doing a lot more reading than I plan to do I can't comment seriously on the Lott-Ehrlich papers. Given that, I will stipulate that Lott is correct in all points there, although I will comment that seems extremely unlikely, since even in my fast overview I see in the section where Lott discusses Ehrlich's claim "Overall, averaging the 10 states, there is a small but not statistically significant increase in the robbery rate at t=0, certainly not the dramatic decrease Lott's fits show.", subsequent later studies have borne out Ehrlich rather than Lott.

Regardless, as late as 2001 Lott's model was still the leading edge of research, as far as I can tell.

The real damage to Lott's thesis came in a series of papers from 2002-2003, in which studies using data extended through 2000 found no statistically significant evidence to support Lott's central claim that liberalizing concealed-weapons permits. Lott made several attempts to incorporate the new data sets into his model, but has not been unable to do so successfully in any paper I have seen.

There is one subsequent paper out, by Lott himself, titled:

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs

which I would like to read. It dates from 2004, and from the abstract is a response to the criticisms people raised about his work. Unforunately, I haven't found a freely available copy of it yet, although I'll keep poking around a bit.

Anyhow, yes, in 1998-2001, the time period from which everything note dates from, Lott's work was still well-considered, if controversial. From 2003 to present, it appears aceptace of his model has generally waned, and it is no longer even particularly controverisal.

The current consensus seems to be that if you take Lott's model, and apply it to other data sets, it certainly doesn't work (which means it is not robust or predictive).5/21/2006 04:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|No, actually I don't think outcomes are the only validator of intentions. PP is simply a very good way of illustrating that point. As to whether PP has an actual eugenic agenda, I'm sure that it has never come up at a meeting post WWII. Of course there are people who support and work in the organization who do it for ugly reasons. I buy your back of the envelope analysis on the number breakout and I buy the rationales you used for the statistical outcomes showing disproportionate black representation.

Here's the thing, Ted and Democrats generally, take statistical outcomes that show negative outcomes for minorities as proof positive of other people's and institution’s racism. Whether it's affirmative action or discrimination litigation in employment or banking or sheriff Arpio's posse, liberals pin nefarious motives to any negative statistical outcome. It is one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. It is why liberals tend to be supportive of institutional racism like affirmative action and conservatives are not. It is why socialism/communism is still strongly supported by liberals. Negative outcomes are something that liberals want to eliminate. Fairness to a liberal is equal outcome not equal opportunity. So, I’ve been simply illustrating the absurdity of this position by staking out the same territory on a liberal sacred cow.

So, can I count on you to fight against affirmative action and all the litigation nonsense in employment and banking etc. where liberals trumpet disproportionate statistical outcomes as justification?5/21/2006 05:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Sirocco,

Your last post was excellent. I felt you really strove to stay within the bounds of what is reasonable and honest. Thanks for that.

I think with regard to the specific statistical problem you mentioned from the Ehrlich debate you should find Lott's rebuttal satisfactory. He details the fact that he used a more comprehensive data set and appropriately compared it to non-carry states. This produces twice as much positive impact than without comparison to non-carry states as with Ehrlich's approach.

I understand your impression of the timeline of the debate and your feeling that it's outcome does not favor Lott in later years. However, look at it through the eyes of a conservative. There are a hundred cheesy politically motivated academic studies to every one rigorous study. The true test of a supposedly debunking study is to allow both authors to debate and defend their numbers. Hence my links to two debates. In a vacuum any study author can claim virtually any results, as you know, by being deceptive and selective with their numbers and methods. The truth however is somewhere in those numbers.

So, to convince me that Lott's numbers and conclusions are bad. You must show me the specific contradicting study and give Lott an opportunity to defend himself against it.

I'll settle for specific reference to the study you believe best debunks Lott. I think you can agree at this point that Black and Nagin can't cut the Mustard at this point...get it? Mustard! I crack myself up.5/22/2006 09:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Morg,

I have already published the links you ask for. The academic exchange between Ayers/Donohue and Lott in 2002-03, particuarly the final paper by Ayers/Donohue, punches pretty gaping holes in the Lott/Mustard model.

Lott has had several years to respond, but has not done so in any academic manner. Given his history of fast response to criticism, that speaks volumes in itself. (Note: He certainly has defended his findings in op-ed pieces, on his personal web-site, etc., but as there a no standards of evidence applied here, your comment about results in a vacuum really does apply).

Further, a detailed 2004 NRC study by some of the leading experts in econometrics found no statistically significant data to indicate concealed-cary laws influenced violent crime rates in either direction. This specifically contradicts Lott/Mustard's findings, but agrees with Donohue/Ayers.

Side note - one member of the panel did have a limited dissent with this finding. Dr. James Wilson of UCLA felt there was evidence of lowering of murder rates, butnot any other formof violent crime. This still largely refutes the Lott/Mustard findings, although lowering murder rates can't be a bad thing. However, the other 15 panel members didn't even agree with this limited finding.

The full NRC paper (Chapter 6 is the most relevant) is at:

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/

It's quite long and detailed. If you prefer, you can find a brief summary here:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091241?OpenDocument


Note Lott, as well as others, was allowed to make a presentation to the panel during it's research, so he certainly had a chance to present and defend his work.

It should also be noted twice in this period, once in his response to Ayers/Donohue and again in his presentation to the NRC panel, Lott presented data which he purpoted supported his claim liberalizing concealed-carry laws lessened the incidence of violent crime. Both times his data was found to include hundreds of coding errors which, when fixed, caused his findings to disappear (i.e., they became statistically meaningless).

Finally, if you really believe only public debate settles academic questions, then you must also feel the earth is flat, the sun travels around the earth (actually, for this one there _was_ public debate, and Galileo lost), that an atom can't be split, and a host of other incorrect beliefs.

The most common form of academic debate comes from an exchange of papers and the analysis of data sets and methods. In this forum, Lott has certinaly lost the debate.5/23/2006 03:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Sirocco,

You were doing so well. Why did you have to go and get all snotty again?

So, the world's not flat? Then how come we don't fall off, if you're so smart?!

When I said:
"The true test of a supposedly debunking study is to allow both authors to debate and defend their numbers."

You read:
"The ONLY valid way to debunk a study is a public debate..." and called me names. Hmmm.

Very well, I'll get back to you on Ayers Donohue.5/23/2006 04:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Sirocco,

Soooooo, one more time, can I count on you to fight against affirmative action and all the litigation nonsense in employment and banking etc. where liberals trumpet disproportionate statistical outcomes as justification?5/23/2006 04:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Sirocco,

Oh by the way, a "debate" is not necessarily two people standing behind a podium. It is also what your described as an academic exchange / peer review. Had you read my linked material at reason was just such a "debate". Only the Time stuff was the other form...5/23/2006 06:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Morg,

I did read your linked material. That's how I noted the one Lott response to Ehrlich which has since clearly been shown to be incorrect.

Anyhow, my point was most academic matters aren't resolved in a debate even in that sense, where both sides are requested to submit papers to the same journal. Generally they are resolved through a proponderance of research over time. The point remains -- if your standard to be convinced is some form of public debate (and by public debate I was including papers such as those you linked too), that's a standard which rarely applies. I was trying to point out the silliness of it. Obviously I don't think you hold either of those views.

While looking at Ayers/Donohue, you should look at the NRC report too. It's lengthy, detailed, and seems right now to be the definitive set of findings in the field.5/15/2006 12:01:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The rumor (and Graham Parker is not involved) is that President Bush will endorse a plan to place National Guard units on the border to give logistical support to the Border Patrol. Funny thing is, this is exactly what Governor Janet Napolitano and Governor Bill Richardson have been asking for permission to do for several months. Their requests have been ignored by the White House and ridiculed by Republican leaders as a half-measure. Some, even some leaders in the National Guard, have trouble with the Guard being used as a replacement Border Patrol, since they are not trained to do law enforcement, and we, despite what Lou Dobbs thinks, are not at war with Mexico. Although I have problems with using the guard, around one hundred guardsmen are already being used in a support function and this would merely be an expansion of that role. Interestingly, such a move was rumored last week. The talk among local civic leaders was that 5,000 troops were going to be placed on the border. I am always hesitant to believe numbers have so many fives and zeroes; numbers in crazy rumors always seem to be round like that. The rumor was so pervasive that apparently Jim Kolbe's office felt the need to call the White House, and they evidently were told that no such thing was being talked about. Say, is whatever Bush endorses tonight going to actually be presented to Congress and acted on?|W|P|114772063950333211|W|P|Bush Endorses Napolitano/Richardson Plan?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/15/2006 01:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Rumor also has it Bush is heading to Yuma to announce his plan.

Is he trying to keep the Californians out? If so, I'm all for that!

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/
mercurynews/news/politics/14567973.htm5/15/2006 04:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I heard on NPR that is lower then 10,000 but more then 1,000.5/15/2006 04:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Ted,

By law, Bush does not need congressional approval to activate the Guard unless it extends beyond two years. So, my guess is he will not seek the approval of Congress.5/15/2006 07:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Interesting. I thought the same thing when I heard the President say it.

Like I said on my blog though, it sounds like a fresh idea for people in the other 48 states.5/15/2006 08:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Morg-

Point taken on the Guard issue, and even if he needed congressional support (if extra funding is needed, for example), this would be the one part of the plan that sails through with broad support.

However, what about the guest worker plan? The issue has gone to a conference committee where the house conferees have already said that both the guest worker plan and the limited amnesty plan are DOA. How much political capital will he be willing to put on the line for that one? Does he have any left?5/16/2006 02:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|He has little political capital left at all. He is disliked by right and left alike. Personally, I am conflicted about a guest worker program. On the one hand, I don't want to shock the economy by requiring 12 mil people to leave all of a sudden. On the other hand, those on the right have a good point that one ought not reward law breaking with the benefits of riding out the application process in the US. Such an arrangement erodes the rule of law and is very unfair to those who do it the right way.5/15/2006 11:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I see that "Morg" has found my blog. If my oh-so-clever deduction is correct, he is a guy that was on my lacrosse team in High School. Yes, I played lacrosse, at a private school even. There goes my populist cred. Morg, one thing you will find is that as liberal as you think I am, there are people on here that regard me as some sort of conservative sell-out. To the rest of you, be nice to him. He is a marine and can kick your ass.|W|P|114771961603691173|W|P|New Poster|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/15/2006 04:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Now come on Ted, we all know you got into private school on your brains and brains alone. :p5/15/2006 04:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|You solved the riddle. I was shocked to see your name in the article from the Republic. It was linked on Drudge I think (that's where the traffic came from by the way). So, I found your brother's bio and bill sponsorship list/rapsheet. I noticed quite a lot of military support stuff. No doubt this is the sort of thing you are thought to have sold out for. I also found Cesar Chavez day...(slapping my hand on my forhead "ai yai yai!!!" <--the sum of senora Kent's efforts...I saw the photos of one of you at the Dem convention in '04, neat. Anyway, I hope you are more of a JFK / Zell Miller Dem than the more modern kind. If so, count on my support.

By the way, I was never a Marine. I was a Navy SEAL for 8.5 years and got commissioned as an Air Force Officer. In June I will have served 8.5 years in the Air Force managing high-tech weapons development. I have deployed forward in support of OIF and OEF.

I intend to haunt your site for a while to provide you a foil for your opinions and hopefully some needed balance, judging by your other posters. I'll try not to get nasty...you can let me know if I get too fired up.

As for everyone else, support your troops, vote Republican as we do!5/15/2006 07:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I have no problem if you played LaCrosse at a private school. As long as it wasn't this year, at Duke University.

Of course, I went to an elite public university (yes there is such a thing) that banned intercollegiate sports except for student run clubs so we had a lacrosse team, but I opted for rubgy instead.5/15/2006 08:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Women never turn Ted down.5/16/2006 09:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Ruben|W|P|What unit were you with Morg? Grunt or non grunt?5/16/2006 06:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Ruben, see my post, not a Marine...most recently Exec of 5EAMS @ Al Mubarak.5/14/2006 12:14:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This blog, Espresso Pundit, AZ Congress Watch and Wactivist are all mentioned in an article in the Arizona Republic this morning. We get to find out that I'm a snarky insider and that Wactivist only gets a hundred or so hits a day (Of course, I get three to four times that much, but I am taller). Those hundred or so hits are probably from Mister T's friends checking to see if he has updated it... By the way, the article says I'm a teacher. I'm really not, I work at an education program, but I lack a teaching certificate. I still remember the sting of Mrs. Silver's ruler on my knuckles and I'd rather not make the teachers angry.|W|P|114763450238039519|W|P|R-Cubed is in the Republic!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/14/2006 01:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well that is lovely for you Ted! Are you going to still associate with us little people or do we have to speak to a spokesperson?5/14/2006 03:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Congrats!5/14/2006 08:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Elizabeth,

I have been asked to be Tedski's spokesperson. Please direct all press inquries through wactivist.com .. that way I may get more than my measly 100 hits a day.5/14/2006 08:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|They could have mentioned that you are in the lege....

Espressopundit gets "Greg Patterson, a former lawmaker"

vs.

while you get "Ted Prezelski, 36, a Tucson teacher" (which, as you noted, isn't completely accurate, even as far as it goes.)

Congrats!5/14/2006 09:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Tom Prezelski is not cool enough to have a blog, and Ted has not won his race yet.

And Mister T, you are just jealous that Ted's cuter then you so gets more female fan mail. :p5/14/2006 11:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|Oops. Sorry 'bout that.

That's what I get for trying to post during work.

Work has a way of interfering with my concentration. Darn that.

:))5/15/2006 05:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|It is cool cpmaz...I make mistakes all the time. No one is perfect. :)5/15/2006 07:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|Actually, Tom has a page on MySpace, but it is more or less empty.5/15/2006 08:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I know this is off topic...dramatically, but I know Ted's readership is quite large. Vote NO on Props 1 and 2 and vote yes on 3 and 4. The transportation, despite the backing by many prominent Democrats is a plan that benefits sprawl and the blading and grading of our deserts. The backers of this plan put down a cool million dollars of Real estate, Developer, Car Dealer and construction money to sell it.

Look under the sheeps clothing...and see this for what it really is.

So you know I am not a total crank...I voted yes on 3 and 4. We NEED a mental health facility that will help people and support our justice system.

My two cents!5/15/2006 09:13:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Geo|W|P|Congrats, Ted!

Don't forget us little bloggers now that you've hit the big time! :)5/15/2006 09:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|It's not quantity of traffic that counts, it's quality. Like I can see what House staffers are worried about, or whom the Justice Department is investigating. Blogging rules!5/13/2006 10:18:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, my mom says, "Did you hear that what's-her-name dropped out?" I think that tells you the whole problem.|W|P|114758395732534313|W|P|Jan Smith-Florez Drops Out|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/13/2006 11:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I told you in an email on Friday the SECOND I HEARD ABOUT IT ON NPR!

Do I need to start calling you with these bulletins?5/14/2006 04:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Elizabeth...yes...I got your e-mail...I just chose not to write about it until yesterday...5/14/2006 09:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Jan Smith-Florez was a fabulous jurist and was a great public servant on our Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 2. I hope she continues her public service to our legal system. Her lack of name rec. was truly a problem and it leaves the state to choose between our Governor, Don Goldwater, and extremist conservative Len Munsil. I am betting Munsil wins the primary.5/14/2006 11:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|oh, I misunderstood the joke, I thought you were whining again about no one telling you anything. Never mind!5/13/2006 06:38:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Earlier this week, Joe Arpaio had his Sheriff's Posse do patrols for immigrants. Hey wait, can a local official enforce federal immigration law? Well, last year, the legislature passed a bill making immigrant smuggling a crime. So, that must mean that Arpaio is going after those coyotes who are exploiting desperate migrants, and those companies that hire the smugglers for conspiring with them, right? No, he is going after the migrants themselves. How does he do this? Well, under the rather novel theory that an illegal immigrant is a co-conspirator in his own smuggling. Wow, just imagine: extend this theory to other laws, and every sixteen year-old caught smoking a joint is now a drug kingpin. We execute those guys, right? Needless to say, the authors of this law, particularly Rep. Jonathan Paton, intended this law to be a way to go after, well, smugglers rather than individuals. This is part of the trouble that I have with the way the Republicans have been handling the immigration issue. There is always talk about a "two-pronged approach": enforcement against those that hire and smuggle, as well as an effort to catch more illegal crossers. Maybe this two pronged fork has been sitting out on the porch by the barbeque too long and one of those prongs has rusted off, because it always seems that these policies inevitably become yet another excuse to go after individual immigrants. Either they discover that it is easier to blame the poor, desperate, pathetic souls that are crawling across our deserts, or they realize that it is better politics not to enforce the laws against people that have the money to hire lawyers and lobbyists. As evidenced by recent statements by Rep. Russell Pearce, we have a problem with racial profiling when it comes to enforcement of these sorts of laws. If it is hard enough for us to keep law enforcement officers, who are trained and screened, from profiling, how easy will it be to keep the "Sheriff's Posse," who are volunteers, from using racial profiling? Oh yeah, didn't Arpaio condemn "vigilanteism" in the Patrick Haab case last year? I guess he figures that that sort of thing is okay now. This sort of flip-flopping has been a normal pattern for Republican officials on this issue. Anyone remember when all the big time Republicans, including J. D. Hayworth, came out against PAN? When is a reporter going to ask Hayworth and Co. about this? Well, as usual, this has nothing to do with enforcing laws (the other 14 sheriffs have voiced no interest in using this law to go after migrants), but has more to do with Arpaio's ego. The fact that this nitwit continues to get so much support from Maricopa County voters is one of the reasons why people down here make fun of y'all up there. Oh, by the way, Arpaio's posse is reported to have nabbed one, yes one, migrant on Thursday night.|W|P|114752985590864741|W|P|Posse Idiotus|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/13/2006 07:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger DRP|W|P|Sheriff Joe has got to go! His dangerous zealotry is just one of the many reasons I avoid Maricopa Cty. as much as I can.5/13/2006 08:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Using the posse seems to be about as sensible as data mining people's phone records.5/13/2006 06:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|At least Ranger Joe's keystone INS routine will provide a good dataset for how completely ineffective local enforcement is in dealing with this issue. There is a reason that almost every law enforcement leader in the state is against this kind of stupidity: it is not what they are trained for, it distracts from the job they are supposed to be doing, and there's no damn budget for it.5/14/2006 08:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Ted,

I think the reason people support the Sheriff derives from the fact that nothing substantial has been done to fix this problem. People are grateful that someone at SOME level of government is willing to do SOMETHING. What's hard to understand about that? Also, your post is misleading in that you suggest he is excluding the smugglers from his net. Should you post a correction?

-Morg yes THAT Morg5/14/2006 12:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|When he catches a smuggler...I'll post a correction.5/14/2006 12:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Well, by that standard(intentions can only be validated by their results) you must in fairness assert that Democrat poverty programs are actually intended to keep the poor impoverished and disenfranchised. No?5/14/2006 01:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I had no idea that strong education, decent food, and shelter were conductive to making people poor.

But hey, I just read studies showing that Democratic policies lift people out of poverty. What do I know?5/14/2006 02:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|It didn't take long for the denizens of this particular Lib hangout to turn sarcastic and snotty. It shouldn't surprise me I suppose. Substance is your enemy.

Try reading again my post. We are talking about results. Tell me how many people in America lived below the poverty line when LBJ declared war on poverty. How many Americans live under poverty now? How much did we spend in that period to raise people out of poverty? Enough to have fixed the problem overnight with straight cash distributions! Instead, we did it the big-government Democrat way and find ourselves right where we started. The most notable improvement in the period resulted from Clinton signing the Republican Welfare Reform Bill, universally despised by Democrats.

So, you "just read studies" that show the benefit of Dem policies. Forgive me if I look under-whelmed :-| I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

By the way, before you get snotty in the future, Liz, check your diction. As an educator you should know that "conductive" is improper. The word you are looking for is "conducive". Perhaps that explains why you’re a lib. If Dems hold power, you will never have to worry about being exposed as a shoddy educator and fired. You can go on forever with life tenure regardless of your ability. As they say in Dem circles “From each according to his ability…to each according to his need”.5/14/2006 03:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Wow...that wen't off topic there. You have to excuse Elizabeth...she attended one of our poorly funded state universities.

So...I was criticizing Sheriff Arpaio...and it becomes an indictment of the welfare system. Um...okay. So, what part don't you like? Maybe AFDC, oh yeah, that was Nixon's idea...and it was gutted by Bill Clinton.

So...what would be better at solving our the poverty problem? Cutting them off completely and just hoping that the "invisible hand" lifts them up?5/14/2006 05:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Sorry Liz. I already feel guilty about being mean to you. I felt you were being nasty and responded in kind. I came here for a substantive discussion and got glib sarcastic responses and it set me off...sorry.

Ted, Liz vectored me off topic, my apologies to you for that. To answer your question, AFDC sucked and it is what I referred to in my last comment. It's new incarnation, TANF, is much better no? Right now I'm willing to support it until it shows itself to be counterproductive. A 40% reduction in welfare rolls is a great achievement. By the way Nixon only modified it slightly and changed the name. It was initiated by FDR in 1935 as ADC. So, don't pin it on Nixon. You've already got plenty of things to kick him around with...

Why so dismissive of the invisible hand? Can you not appreciate the vast wealth and prosperity it has provided in this country relative to our more socialistic peers. Would you rather a 10-12% unemployment rate like France and Germany. That's what I meant when I said Dem policies judged by results create what their authors assert is the opposite of their intentions. So, is it fair to have a double standard in your analysis?

Yes you were criticizing Arpio and not really answering my earlier comments in response. Do you want to address them now?5/14/2006 05:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Morg|W|P|Just to clarify, I don't prefer the complete absence of social safety net. I've never met a conservative who did. I simply acknowledge that government programs are the least efficient means of solving social pathologies and should therefore be resorted to minimally. Why are Dems so in love with growing government? Isn't it obvious that it is the worst approach to most problems?

Talk to M. Angulo lately? He was conservative if I remember correctly.5/11/2006 03:30:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I am not inclined to like Qwest. Not only are they the monopolistic "man" keeping us down, but they are owned by the media-shy Philip Anschutz, who is an owner of DC United. Anyone that keeps Freddy Adu and Alecko Eskandarian gainfully employed is pretty low on my list. But, as it turns out, they did a decent, honorable, and yes, patriotic thing. They refused to turn over customer usage details to the National Security Agency. This means that despite the fact that tens of millions of Americans have their phone calls logged in an NSA database (every one of these customers leading a dangerous al-Quaeda cell, no doubt), Qwest customers were free from this invasion of privacy. As I hear more about this, it ticks me off more and more. It turns out that these other companies were paid, yes paid, for these records. No warrant or appeal to patriotism there, just raw greed. Qwest, on the other hand, stood fast even though they were threatened with the loss of government contracts. R-Cubed kudos to Qwest. At what point will people actually get angry about this sort of thing?|W|P|114738778831578338|W|P|Qwest Refuses to Cooperate with Dragnet|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/11/2006 04:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I worked at Qwest (and actually left because of the way they treated their customers) during Nacchio's reign as CEO and while I do blame him for destroying my manager's (who I happened to like) retirement and subsequent lay off right before she found out she was ill, I have to say, he did the right thing this one and only time.

His replacement Dick Notebaert has been decent enough I suppose and actually ended the talks with the NSA.

By the way you suck for posting about this before I had a chance to. Now I have to come up with another topic.5/11/2006 04:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I am angry as well about the lack of an investigation or any other inquiry into the NSA spying that was illegally activated...and lied about...by our President. No one knows how far the President went into spying...and upon whom. Legal scholar colleagues debated this endlessly on my listserv and the only conclusion they had was that this is evidence of the Presidency gaining power and the Congress giving it up...and refusing to use its checks to punish the wrong-doing.

Now we only hear about reforms to the program to make it better...despite the fact that it is so clear that the President broke the law...and is not being punished.5/11/2006 08:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Angry about it? If you're Jon Kyl, you're angry that the public knows about this.5/11/2006 08:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger DRP|W|P|Yes, and the middle finger to Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth for cooperating with Bush NSA on this.5/11/2006 09:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Protect Democracy|W|P|Our tax dollars being used. Yes, we are paying the phone companies to let the NSA spy on us.

Almost like a Twilight Zone episode.

Qwest has been ripping off customers for years. I nearly filed a lawsuit 10 years ago and created a case file but dropped it because I was too busy with other things.5/12/2006 07:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Yeah...I can imagine that Qwest didn't want any MORE scrutiny...or maybe there was something in the records that the justice dept. would have liked to have seen.5/12/2006 10:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...since he is not saying it...or can't say it....and this is off topic.

Vote TED in LD28 For House Rep! I don't know where to sign his petition or to give him clean dollars...but I would like to.

Maybe someone else can tell me?5/12/2006 05:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Call Ted up on the phone Kral...then demand to know where to send money or help.

Or get a blank form and fill it out with the pertinant information and give it to him the next time you see him.5/12/2006 05:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Also Ted cannot talk about his campaign on this blog because it would be considered an inkind contribution since this blog is read by everyone of note in the state.

I do believe that the third blog could be used to talk about the race since I am the only person who reads it apparently.5/12/2006 10:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|I think it is a sad indicator of how bad things have become when a corporation gets kudos simply for doing the right thing. In any healthy poltical economy, it would be the expected standard of behavior, not the notable exception.

That said, I do feel a little better about paying my cellular bill this month.5/09/2006 09:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Long time fixture at Pima County Democratic Headquarters Cliff May has died. May was the friendly older man who would answer your calls or greet you with a smile when you would come in. May was born in Branson, Missouri. One of the early incidents that shaped his political views was when he saw an African American family get arrested just for picnicking in one of Branson's public parks. May went on to college at Kansas City University (now the University of Missouri at Kansas City), and joined the United States Army, or "General Patton's Army" as he called it. He was in the infantry and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. When he returned home after the war, he became a teacher and school administrator in Oak Park, Michigan. He was proud of many of his students, who included renouned global poverty expert Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs. His students also included Geoffrey Fieger, attorney, frequent talk show guest and one-time candidate for governor of Michigan, and Feiger's brother Doug, lead singer of the Knack. The Feiger brothers were also "beneficiaries" of one of the innovations that May brought to Oak Park schools: in-house suspension. He retired to Tucson, and two of his daughters teach in our public schools here.|W|P|114719362266867920|W|P|Cliff May|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/10/2006 09:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger michelle|W|P|Any word on a funeral?5/05/2006 08:28:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Tucson Citizen is reporting this morning that Jim Kolbe is ready to endorse Steve Huffman in the CD 8 Republican primary. This is a bit of a slap to Mike Hellon, who has been an ally of Kolbe in the past, and his ex-wife, Sen. Toni Hellon, was a key player in Kolbe's campaigns. There have been concerns that Hellon should drop out in favor of the stronger Huffman to make sure that the sizeable moderate Republican base of the district isn't split so Randy Graf would win the primary. Kolbe is scheduled to have a press conference at Huffman's headquarters today. Maybe this has nothing to do with politics. He could be telling us how much he's happy about the Phoenix Suns going to game 7. Maybe he just wants to be a jerk and go to Huffman's office and endorse Frank Antenori. Hey, he's got nothing to lose now, right?|W|P|114684398678577970|W|P|Kolbe to Back Huffman|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/05/2006 09:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I will admit that the driving history of Ted Kennedy in regard to Chapaquitic is kind of a dated story. Apparently in a more recent event Patrick Kennedy should not drive either.

I know you were very concerned if there had been a cover-up down in Texas with the VP. I am sure you are equally concerned about the possibility of a cover-up here. Oh, BTW driving under the influence covers medications. That’s why they no longer just call it drunk driving. Being impaired because of medication is not a good excuse, he still should not have been driving.

Yes this is off topic. Get over it.5/05/2006 10:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger eckeric|W|P|Off topic Mad Libs:

I will admit that the posting history of Phx Kid in regard to being off topic is kind of a dated story. Apparently in a more recent event Phx Kid should get his own blog.

I know you were very concerned if there had been off topic posting down in other threads with the Phx Kid. I am sure you are equally concerned about the possibility of a not having a clue as to what the post is about here. Oh, BTW posting under the influence covers medications. That’s why they no longer just call it posting while drunk. Being impaired because of medication is not a good excuse, he still should not have been posting.5/05/2006 11:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|It doesn't matter which Republican Kolbe endorses. Yours is a competitive district, and this could be a very good year for Democrats. So, as long as the Democrats at the end of the day unite around the eventual primary winner (and y'all have several good candidates, my advice is again to be sure to come together in the endgame-- like we didn't in 2002) my prediction is this:

Kobe's team lost last night, and Kolbe's team will lose in November.5/05/2006 12:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I totally agree, phx kid. Kennedy shouldn't have been driving. He should have had a driver idling outside the bar waiting for him like Mitchell and Chao have every day at home.
http://www.wonkette.com/politics/elaine-chao/madame-chao-dont-be-fooled-by-her-cuteness-171326.php

PS Wonder how long it will take till the kid goes back to rehab5/05/2006 01:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|You know, I knew I didn't need to say anything about Patrick Kennedy because Phx Kid would bring it up.

For all of the handwringing from the right about this incident (those priveleged Kennedys!), would we have even heard about it if it was not a Kennedy? Probably not.

Say, what about that nest of hookers that lobbyists were using to ply defense contracts out of Republican congressmen? Since that actually resulted in some piss poor equipment going to our soldiers, you'd think that there would be more hackles from the "dexter" side of the aisle.

What? Nothing? So hard to hear it sometimes.5/05/2006 06:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|PhxKid: Saipan
'nuff said.

Anyway, this came up during the last Prez election about Al Gore endorsing Dean, what exactly does an endorsement do except maybe bring in some money?5/06/2006 10:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Back to the actual subject of this post by Ted...

The efforts to pump up Huffman continue. There are obvious worries about Graf facing any of the Democratic challengers.

I still see Graf as the front-runner.

First, name recognition benefits Graf. He ran before and did well.

Second, the Republican primary brings very conservative voters. Huffman will have to appear that way to win...he has already tried and been called out for flipping. A good Graf campaign will thwart him for a record that is moderate, pro-business and not conservative enough.

Third, Munsil is on the same primary ticket. He has legions of loyal supporters who will turn out. My bet...they also vote for Graf. A good Graf campaign will work a lot with Munsil.

Fourth, IMMIGRATION. All gallop polls point to this being a very important issue to Conservative Republicans (those that turn out in primaries)...and they want strict strict anti-immigrant language. Graf is a master at this and did it before it was "cool."

Fifth, gallop polls show moderate republicans (who would support a Huffman) as being pretty down right now and not engergized. Those who are may cross party lines in the General or frankly will not vote. They will especially not vote in a primary. Again...Graf wins.

Last, Huffman and Hellon may be going for the same base of voters. Split moderate and establishment Republican votes.

Edge....Randy Graf.5/08/2006 09:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Krajmajales:

I agree with your assessment. Graf has a lot of support from the rest of the ultra-right loonies around the country too (those who supported Helen Chenowyth a few years ago and who now idolize Tom Tancredo). There may not be enough of them to win in general, but they have a history of getting together to work under the radar and elect an occasional congressman, and they are a reliable source of funds.5/04/2006 05:20:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|As you all know, I'm basically a smart alec. If you make a slight error, I will jump on it and make fun of you. But I try to be fair. For example, when I first saw Mike Hellon's ad, I thought I heard wrong when they said that Arizona will elect its first new congressman since 1984. I saw the ad again today, and yes, they do say that. Not "Southeastern Arizona," but "Arizona." Go to his website and check it out. "First new congressman" in the last twenty years would come as a big shock to Jon Kyl, Jay Rhodes, Ed Pastor, Karan English, Sam Coppersmith, John Shadegg, Matt Salmon, J. D. Hayworth, Jeff Flake, Rick Renzi, Trent Franks or Raúl Grijalva, who were all "new congressmen" in the decades since 1984. This is a shade over 40% of the people who have represented Arizona in the House of Representatives since statehood. NB - This ad is running pretty early. Is Jon Kyl going to have a press release saying that Hellon is "desperate"?|W|P|114678965238802866|W|P|Mike Hellon Ad|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/05/2006 11:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Jon Kyl started running his own early ads last week.

He even came out with the obligatory 'why is Jim Pederson running attack ads' ad which usually presages a flurry of personal attacks.

Of course Pederson only has called into question some of the more ridiculous aspects of Kyl's immigration plan-- which is already on the record-- but I expect Kyl to run a very sleazy campaign straight out of the sewer. And why do I expect that? Because a couple of months ago I got a phone call from a 'pollster' who was trying to smear Pederson with a bunch of half truths and distortions. I'm sure I will hear them again, on Kyl's commercials.5/05/2006 12:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Right on, Eli. I'm fully expecting the half truths and distrotions to come from both sides.

Oh wait. It's already begun.5/04/2006 04:05:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|When one protests that one is not a racist, it is proper for one not to precede those protests with an attack on someone's citizenship because of their ancestry. I don't know a lot, but that seems to be a good policy.|W|P|114678406376731881|W|P|Advice to Senator Ron Gould|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/04/2006 04:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This is just amazing...interrogating her like this is the inquisition or something. People can disagree with illegal immigration...and even fight it...but this is what talk radio spawns...out and out disrespect for people.5/04/2006 10:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|Wonder if Gould is looking at Tom Tancredo and JD Hayworth and thinking to himself "I could do that"?5/05/2006 12:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|I didn't put it on my blog, but one of the more odd moments came when the San Luis mayor left the podium, but Gould wanted a follow up question.

He was raising his right hand - not very high and a little stiff, admittedly for his question, but he was pushing so much and being so agressive that the gesture very much looked like a nazi salute. It was so bad the county sup who was talking next CALLED GOULD ON IT and said "Sir, you look like you are doing a nazi salute" or something to that effect.

This Gould guy, who people say is probably the DUMBEST member of the legislation, is also the most OUT THERE.5/05/2006 09:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Dumbest member of the legislature? He's got some stiff competition for that dubious title...5/04/2006 03:29:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A colleague at work listens to KNST's morning show once in a while. She caught it earlier this week when someone called in to say that the host's rhetoric on immigration bordered on racism. The host then attacked her for being a "liberal," questioned her "courage" and claimed that it isn't about race and blah blah blah... Then, the host ended the call and went to do a spot with their sponsor, Cricket cellphones. The Cricket representative was happy to announce that they now have new free long distance to Mexico. I'll just leave it at that. No need to elaborate, really.|W|P|114678207414040978|W|P|If Irony Had Spleen and a Big Enough Mouth, It Would Be Involved in Talk Radio|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/04/2006 10:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|I am praying that we can get Air America here soon.

Jim Parisi, one of the morning hosts, is married to Valerie Cavazos (former 13 reporter-current host of a hispanic themed show on channel 8.)

The irony is dripping here.....5/05/2006 03:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|George:

I also miss Air America. But if you are a bit conspiratorially minded, I have a morsel for you.

I listened to Air America from up here in northeastern Arizona. It would come in scratchy, but you could listen to it easily enough.

Then about four months before it went off the air, all of a sudden another (mostly conservative) talk show station from Salt Lake City on the same band (1010) boosted their power or something that caused their signal to interfere with AA Phoenix, so if you were driving around, say on the reservation or in Winslow, you'd have a tough time picking out what was said on Air America.

But since the switchover-- surprise, the Salt Lake City station has powered down so now if you are driving on the reservation you can still hear the 'new' Christian 1010 with no problems.

There was one night when I got to do a talk show on a usually Republican station in Albuquerque (it was part of a promotional contest they were doing.) I had a great time and did a very good job, if I do say so myself. But I don't think what I was saying fit their audience profile.5/04/2006 06:21:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Tuesday, the Arizona Corporation Commission approved yet another rate hike for Arizona Public Service. They needed the money to cover higher fuel costs. Okay, I think we all can understand that. Even the consumer-oriented RUCO said that a 5.4% increase was necessary. APS demanded an 11% increase, and the commission granted a 7.6% increase. It has been estimated that this means the average APS ratepayer will be paying between $7.00 and $8.00 more per month to run their air conditioners. Yes, fuel costs have gone up, but this is the third rate hike that APS has been granted over the last couple of years. Commissioner Kris Mayes brought up some concerns during a previous request for an "emergency" rate increase about how much APS has been spending on executive bonuses and travel. Despite higher fuel costs, APS found $14 million dollars for advertising and sports and another $1.9 million for bonuses for senior managers. Mayes managed to attatch ammendments to this rate hike that banned such expenses for the year 2007. Maybe not paying those bonuses to senior managers and executives will let them know what eight bucks a month means to most families. I still have to ask, where did the money from the other rate hikes go? Despite the recent rate hikes, APS is in deep trouble. Their bond rating is only one tick above "junk" status, and despite the problems I have with the rate hikes, a solvent, strong APS is far better for consumers than an APS on the verge of bankruptcy. However, I'm wondering what got them here in the first place. APS doesn't exist in a vacuum, where is their parent company, Pinnacle West? In January, Mayes asked why Pinnacle West was able to give its other holdings cash infusions, but not APS. Has this question been answered? What about the suits that were paid three million dollars back in 2004 that got them into this mess? Why do they feel that working families should pay for their poor decisions? I have to give the Commission props for granting a lower rate hike than they were asking for (except for Commissioner Mike Gleason, who argued for a higher increase), and for passing Mayes's ammendments. However, one has to remember that this commission also granted past rate hikes without asking the tough questions. One wonders if we would be where we are at now if we had had a more consumer oriented commission.|W|P|114675113329320828|W|P|In Case You Need More Reasons to Vote Democratic for Corporation Commission|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/04/2006 09:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|It would be nice to at least have a mix of parties and voices on this important commission. A few Democrats or an independent or two couldn't hurt for balance at least.5/04/2006 11:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|“Reasons to Vote Democratic”

Hello… Kris Mayes is a Republican.5/04/2006 11:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I know...she's also despised by her party (evidence: they recruited a marginally qualified schlub to run against her last time out)...might be good to get her some help.5/04/2006 12:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|She was received very well the last time I saw her at a party activity.5/04/2006 11:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Shane Wikfors|W|P|It would be interesting how the vote went and who advocated for the hike. I can tell you that Mayes, Mundell and Gleason are known as RINO's which would likely translate to fiscal positions. Mayes was even the Communications Director for Napolitano - definitely not a friend to conservatives, social or fiscal.5/03/2006 06:37:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Being that I am of mixed Polish and Mexican heritage, I get twice as much e-mail. No, really. I'm on a list of Polish-Americans. For the most part, it is an exchange of recipies and cultural news but there has also been concern about the decline of American Polonia as white urban ethnics abandon the cities for the suburbs. There were a few posts about Polish-Americans marching with Mexican-Americans in Chicago (my greatness inspired them), and that led to a deluge (Potop? Yes, I've seen that movie) of posts from people angry about illegal immigration, and angry at illegal immigrants. It always comes down to "my family came legally," which isn't true if their Polish ancestors came in the decades after the passage of the 1924 immigration act. Arguments against illegal immigration seem to be all over the internet these days, even on BigSoccer. I guess I'd pay more attention to their "this isn't about race" claims if they didn't decend into rants about "wetbacks." The irony I find on the Polish-American list is the handwringing over illegal immigrants speaking Spanish, while at the same time bemoaning things like closing of Polish language newspapers and radio stations. One poster, calling herself Panna Cynthia, got a bit tired of the anti-immigration talk becomming anti-immigrant on the list and posted the following. Her reference to "DP Camps" is to the Displaced Persons camps where refugees were put after World War II.
I've enjoyed the Polish political information that has recently been posted to this list. I wasn't going to say anything about the recent posts regarding the immigrant marches, but then I recalled that story about how no one spoke up for the other people and when they came to take me away and there was no one left to speak. I know that this is going to draw brickbats, but so be it. The organization of the immigrant marches was prompted by a Congressional bill that would have made it a felony to assist an illegal alien. As originally written, if you gave the illegal immigrant food or water it could have been a felony. That bill was subsequently rewritten when it was realized how severe the punishment would have been for even minor acts of goodwill. But the impetus for the immigrants to be heard was started. There is nothing like that initial taste of free speech and the right to assemble to fill one's heart and spirit. I'm not an historian, but I believe that the American Revolution, the Boston Tea Party, the underground railroad, and Solidarność, to name a few, were all illegal in their time. It is important for a civil society to obey laws. It is also important to take a look at those laws from time to time. My ancestors, of course, came from Poland. They came before WWII, so did not have to suffer in a DP camp. Wouldn't it have been nice if those that had to suffer all those years in DP camps could have been brought to this country sooner? Why did it take so long? Was it possibly the concern of Americans that they didn't want all those poor, uneducated, non-English speaking people here? My ancestors came in the early part of the 20th century. They did not immediately learn the language and assimilate. They had radio and newspapers, but these were Polish language as were their families, neighbors and the priests and nuns. My mother was born in this country and didn't learn any English until she went to school. Parts of the south side of Chicago were like little Polish villages. Sound familiar? In 1911 or so that someone testifying before a Congressional committee trying to keep down the number of people legally allowed to immigrate from Eastern Europe said that those people shouldn't be allowed in because the Slavic languages are so different from English that they would never learn English and therefore never assimilate. They were talking about my grandparents. From recent comments I think some of the Slavic descendants have assimilated far too well. They now sound just like the Americans who were trying to keep our ancestors out. Living in Chicago and being active in the Polish community I often interact with immigrants from both Mexico and Poland. Some of the "legal" Polish immigrants are here on student visas. I guess you could say they are "studying business" since what they are doing is learning trades, working and sending money home to Poland. In all the reports of yesterday's march in Chicago not one person "demanded" to be made a citizen. What I heard were people who wanted to be heard, to tell their story of hard work and suffering, why they want to work in America, to say that other than not coming into America through legal channels they are law abiding, work and pay taxes. That there must be something we can do so that they aren't "illegal". Basically, they want to be "legal" aliens. I think California and other southwestern and southern states bear a hugely uneven burden of illegal immigration from Mexico. But I'm sure there must be a way to relieve that burden. If we don't start talking, that solution will never be found. Another thing that we are seeing in Chicago is a huge increase in the number of legal aliens who were too busy putting food on the table and a roof over their heads to think about something as trivial as politics now realizing that they can make a difference. They are registering for citizenship and to vote in droves. My Polish ancestors were dirt poor and came to this country because they were hungry - dla chlebem. They suffered to get into this country and then suffered discrimination when they got here. Stories of their suffering breaks my heart. The plight of immigrants hasn't changed since the Israelites fled Egypt. (Remember how they whined and complained about their condition to Moses for 40 years!) Knowing my ancestors' sufferings how can I not at least listen to these immigrants. I don't know the solution of how to strengthen our borders to keep America safer for those who feel threatened, but I'm willing to listen and discuss it. I don't know the answers to address the immigrant issues. But I think that I am not honoring the sacrifices of our country's founding fathers and my ancestors, that I am not honoring my faith, honoring Solidarność, unless I listen to those who are asking to be heard and seeking a better way. I'll duck now since I know what's coming. Pozdrawiam.
|W|P|114666543975527569|W|P|From the Polish-American List|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/03/2006 01:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|What people don't realize is that the number of illegal immigrants is the difference between the number that the job market will support, and the number that Congress wishes came here (the legal quota.) For a party that is such a big believer in free markets, the Republicans sure seem to have a disconnect going on this one.5/03/2006 04:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I had a very long argument with my mother last night over this. I nearly hung up on her because I was so angry at how she just repeated all of these right wing talking points about how evil the illegal immigrants are.

I told her that what she is saying is the same thing that was said about the Polish, the Jews from Eastern Europe, Russians, the Irish...any large group of immigrants (legal or not) who were not proper English speakers.

She said "so what?"5/03/2006 04:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Oh and she gets mad at me for speaking the proper English my snarky English friends teach me. "You are American! Speak American!"5/01/2006 07:04:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|John Kenneth Galbraith has died. While many economists seem to be cheerleaders for policies slanted towards the upper end of society, Galbraith showed that even the most prosperous economies have large groups of people that didn't share in that prosperity. Gosh, you mean everyone doesn't have a two-car garage? You mean to tell me we have to think about those people? The Ottawa Citizen has a long article on Galbraith.|W|P|114649285242683890|W|P|John Kenneth Galbraith|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/01/2006 11:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger The Screaming Centrist|W|P|Gosh, you mean everyone doesn't have a two-car garage?

Absolutely not. Some of us have three car garages.5/01/2006 09:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|RIP Mr. Galbraith, thanks for the words of wisdom.5/02/2006 05:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Espo|W|P|I just did a report on Galbraith last week. He was a hero. Read the Affluent Society, all about the importance of investing in infrastructure.5/05/2006 12:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TooBlue4U|W|P|He didn't contribute much to the "science" if you will, of economics. But he sure framed the discussion. And for that, this liberal is grateful. RIP, JKG.