6/30/2006 01:41:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Several Republican protestors were across the street from the Temple of Music and Art. One was saying things in Spanish, which is ironic for a number of reasons. Here was something I found a bit funny: a couple of them shouted things about Howard Dean's infamous scream after the Iowa Caucus three years ago. In some quarters, making fun of the scream is still novel humor. I suppose that their point was that Dean was an unhinged, intemperate rabble rouser. This point would have been better made had it not been itself screamed by people wearing silly hats and holding signs comparing fellow Americans to Osama bin Ladin.|W|P|115170063329129916|W|P|Another Observation About Last Night...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/30/2006 03:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|or the best part was the WHITE, non-Hispanics yelling "Viva-Kyl" and "Viva Bush" ...

Its like when there was the "Young Latino Republican" group during the 2004 elections that had only one member and that was an english speaking only white mormon 22 year old.

Wow...can you say "out of touch" any louder?6/30/2006 04:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tony GOPrano|W|P|You whack job dems never learn do ya!!! Your fearless leader, Howie "Yahoooooooooooooooooblah" Dean is leading you straight to hell. When are you libs ever going to learn? Forgetaboutit!!!6/30/2006 06:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|My favorite was the sign declaring that Governor Dean "fought the Viet Cong on the ski slopes." Ironic, because of the non-existent service record of both Bush and Cheney.

Memo to the GOP Goons: Dean was rejected by the military for medical reasons. He didn't pull any political strings, nor did he have his wife write term papers for him so he could maintain a student deferment.6/30/2006 08:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger thinkright|W|P|tom-az ... some of them were hispanics, but most importantly, Americans. I think that when you spell "out of touch" you need to include "tom-az".

tom P... Deano skipped out on the draft because of a bad back and then went skiing all winter. Clinton burned his draft card and skipped out to protest against Americans in London. Any one that disagrees is a "GOP Goon"?

My favorite sign was "Bin Laden loves Lefties"6/30/2006 08:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Bin Ladin is very enamored of the American Left, particularly their views on social issues. I hear he's a big proponent of gay marriage.6/30/2006 08:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Hey, Bush is pro-terrorist marriage. He even is okay with them having children.6/30/2006 09:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Elizabeth, apparently the President is okay with Amnesty for Terrorists too.

Ya know, kill an American soldier and its a-okay with the President and the Republican party7/01/2006 10:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|I love the regressives calling the Democrats loonie. It's really a hoot.

First of all, I would love to point out that the right got us into the mess we are in now. They have bankrupted us.

The best part of it: Limbaugh (their radio fuhrer) took a little guys only trip (his exact words on his radio show) to the Dominican Republic with a prescription of viagra. Now righties, please tell me this-was Limbaugh down there banging the other "guys" he was with? Or was he down there taking advantage of the child sex trade? So either Limbaugh is a flaming homo or child rapist? Which one is it??

It's the right that has the corner on loonie.6/30/2006 07:24:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Howard Dean last night at a rally at the Temple of Music and Art:
And CD 8 will elect a Democratic congresswoman...I mean, congressperson...
Dean is predicting a primary win for Francine Schacter, definitely.|W|P|115167789013166798|W|P|Howard Dean Endorses...?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/30/2006 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|Howard Dean is a Dumbass.6/30/2006 08:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I watched the video of Gabby and Patty in Wilcox. Patty states that clean election financing “is the most important issue.” She is off her rocker. I sure home if Patty wins the primary and that she runs on Clean Elections and her other great idea about colonizing Mars before the Chinese.

Either Graf or Hellon could beat her and her wacky ideas and even Huffman might have a chance.6/30/2006 08:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|I guess his foot has yet to be removed from his mouth.6/30/2006 10:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|PHX Kid, obviously you have a hearing disorder!

Patty said that nothing good is going to be accomplished in Congress until we have clean elections because special interest lobbies keep blocking programs like universal healthcare.

Why do you think we don't yet have a hydrogen car? It's because the oil lobby has blocked it.

Patty is spot-on on this one. We will never get through our essential major initiatives until we have federal clean elections because the special interests keep blocking them. Once we get the influence of their money out of Congress, we'll finally have a shot at making some real progressive reforms.

As for the Mars stuff... you're taking that completely out of context. Patty was expressing her support for the University of Arizona's Mars research program.

Did you know that the U of A gets more money from NASA than all the other universities in the country combined?? They must be doing something right-- so if you have a problem with this one, maybe you should just take it up with the U of A research faculty.6/30/2006 10:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|The DNC, AzDP and the PCDP is losing all financial support from the Tuttle family after last night's Dean "faux pas".

Only individual candidates will get my money from now on. If they are independents and I agree with them, then they will get the cash.

"F" this incestuous Democratic Party organization.6/30/2006 10:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger CD8Dem|W|P|Here is the Video link in case anyone wants to see Gabby called out by Patty on her arrogant lies of supporting clean elections. Gabby Talks the Talk but when it's time to take action - she can't walk the walk.


Hopefully Gabby will actually live up to her challenge!6/30/2006 11:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Really? Saying you support clean elections when you actually vote in legislature in support of clean elections is an "arrogant lie"?

I'm feeling very much as if I have been yanked through the looking glass.6/30/2006 12:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|Sirocco, your feelings are either a drug reaction, or a concrete hallucination.

You absolutely have NOT been yanked through a looking glass.

If you had been yanked, all of the past week would have been good news for Gabby. Instead everyone has debated polls, electability, clean elections, the meaning of absolute, Lauren Harmon, and sometimes Gabby's endorsement rollouts.

All good news, depending on how you spin it.6/30/2006 12:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Well, since I don't use drugs, can't be the former ...

No, no, I definitely think it's cd8dem's comment which has me feeling like up is down and down is up.6/30/2006 01:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|‘zona dem

I may have some disorders but hearing is not one of them. Just in case I missed something I listened to the tape 5 times. Patty said of clean elections and publicly financed congressional campaigns “this is the most important issue being talked about today.” She said not me. Maybe you are the one with disorder.

About Mars, I was sitting near the front of the room at the Marana Chamber of Commerce candidate forum. Again Patty said it not me. She was pretty clear, she wanted to fund a mission to Mars before the Chinese get there.

I am sorry if you don’t like what I am writing but the facts are the facts. I do read and understand English well enough to know that Patty is saying some pretty kooky stuff. I hope that she is the nominee and just keeps talking like she is now.6/30/2006 01:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|PHX Kid, you've given yourself away as either a Republican or a right-leaning independent.
You seem to think Patty is so crazy, and yet you "hope she is the nominee and just keeps talking liks she is now."
So... you hope the Dems nominate someone crazy who can't win the seat, is what I'm getting out of this.

That being the case, WHY ARE WE EVEN LISTENING TO YOU? Oh, wait, we're not. You're irrelevant, and taking the typical right-wing tack of using quotations out of context to make good candidates look unhinged.

Go home to Phoenix, PHX kid.6/30/2006 01:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|‘zona dem, you are close. I am a far right-leaning Republican. I never said Patty was crazy. It’s just that her shtick for winning the primary will be a flop in the general. I don’t need to make Patty look unhinged, she does that herself. How many times did she look at that piece of paper when she was attacking Gabby. Spit it out woman and quit checking your notes and correcting yourself.

Only you can answer the question of why you are even listening to me. My guess is because I have a valid point and it bothers you.

I have thought of going home to Phoenix but for now I find living in Northwest Tucson quite nice. Lots of other right-wingers up here.6/30/2006 02:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Patty was looking at her notes during that? No one has coached her?

Not good. Glancing at notes before you speak is fine, but not DURING.

Howard Dean's saying Congresswoman may have been generic terminology and not a slip of any kind.

I noticed we get all riled up when the word "woman" is used as a general reference for men but no one complains about "congressman, businessman, etc." when referring to women. (admittedly, my girlfriend noticed that and I thought she had a good point)

Sexism at play?6/30/2006 02:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|'zona dem,

Since you are new here, you should know that phx kid is well known on this blog for being the resident Republican. He didn't give anything away on this thread. He's been here and posting for the GOP for quite some time.

If you're so upset by what he says, just don't read it. Anytime you see his name in underlined blue, skip to the next comment. It's not hard to do.6/30/2006 02:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Fedup,

The whole thing, I think, was scripted, but beautifully. The "Gabby...Gabby...Gabby" harkens back to one of Reagan's debates. "There he goes again..."

On top of that a new poll comes out by Weiss recently. One person that got that poll said that her campaign was using it also to test issues...like say...Clean elections. Then the play on words.

Then blogs by her and blogs by her bloggers and circulation of tapes.

Fun stuff...

Roger6/30/2006 02:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|fedup, I could be wrong but it seemed to me like Patty was only reading off the paper when she was reading off Gabby's quotation, to make sure she got it right. I watched the video clip again, and during the rest of her response she doesn't look at the paper at all.6/30/2006 03:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|I heard Patty talk about the Mars bases too. She has no idea what she's saying about this. She also made some statement that was way out in left field about satellites need to start orbiting the moon because they can be attacked by the Chinese while in Earth orbit!

I guess you might say she is really pushing for loony programs.6/30/2006 04:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|Show us the quotes. Your first person accounts have little credibility with the readers.

If you say Patty said something and you heard it, then you should back it up. Where is the recording and the transcript?

Where are the facts?6/30/2006 04:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|emersome don’t you know how it works? You are not supposed to say anything bad about Patty. It might upset ‘zona dem and boredinaz.

boredinaz I am glad to see that you read for content and are not bias against the messenger. If you actually read my comments I am not posting for the GOP at all. It’s just my personal view on the world like the rest of you.

‘zona dem about when she put the paper down is when Patty starts to stumble over the dates. The point is that Gabby has excellent presentation and would run circles around a misanthrope like Huffman.6/30/2006 04:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|"I guess you might say she is really pushing for loony programs."

You mean like Latas'loony polls?6/30/2006 04:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|"The point is that Gabby has excellent presentation and would run circles around a misanthrope like Huffman."

That quote is almost as good as the Latas poll numbers.

Gabby excellent presentation skills? Have you ever heard her? By far the worst presentation skills of the lot. Francine has better presence and she has the enthusiasm of a slug.6/30/2006 04:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I have seen Gabby in person at a lunchtime forum in Marana and seen the tape from Wilcox. She does not hesitate or miss a beat. I think that will count for something in November. But I could be wrong.

I am pretty sure that I am correct that come November the hot issue for winning the race will NOT be clean elections.6/30/2006 04:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Taking a break from bashing Democratic candidates, does anyone think Graf still has a chance?

Any candidate opposing him only needs to answer one line to each Graf statement. Can anyone guess what that would be?6/30/2006 04:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|phx kid,
Clean elections won't be the issue in November. Correct. I suspect it was just the first shot from the Weiss campaign and they will be focusing on plenty of other issues to follow.

It could work to tie it into a larger theme of corruption.6/30/2006 04:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|I don't record events I attend. I'm sure others heard the same thing I heard. Plan and simple.

Fedup, you're not getting it are you? Why not go back to Art's blog and catch up on some reading.

I would expect anyones canvas to have similar numbers. The thing to note is that these people really might support Latas. He is very persuasive.6/30/2006 04:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Wow.

Man am I happy I live in CD5. You all are pretty ridiculous.

Go Harry!6/30/2006 05:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Graf has a new campaign manager. The quality of the new pick will say a lot about Randy’s chances from this point.

I can’t guess the one line so please tell us.

I would be careful in CD5. The last time Grant Woods got behind a candidate the guy lost. Good luck.6/30/2006 07:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger elephanthunter06|W|P|Let me make something very clear. Patty Weiss supports the Mars program that the UofA gets Federal Grant money for. If supporting the UofA and NASA and Gabby's astronaut boyfriend makes her looney then count me in.

Does that make Gabby looney for dating an astronaut that wants to go to Mars before the Chinese. I grew up during the glory days of the space program. Maybe we should support our space program instead of corporations like Walmart. Gabby dates an astronaut but supports Walmart.6/30/2006 08:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|GABBY IS A CLOSET REPUBLICAN!!!!6/30/2006 08:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I concur Mister T.

Howard Dean said we were going to elect a Democratic congresswoman in CD8. Why is this something to get all upset over? There are three women in the race...in fact two out of the three serious contenders are women. So to say "we are going to elect a Democratic congresswoman..." is not the end of the world or an endorsement of someone.

Y'all might want to take a break from this fighting over CD8 and spend some time with the kids this weekend or something because this is ridiculous.6/30/2006 09:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|elephanthunter06 please tell Patty to keep talking about Mars. Such a kitchen-table issue.

“Gabby dates an astronaut but supports Walmart.” Can some one explain how those two items are in the slightest way connected?

Anonymous I don’t know Gabby so I cannot say in which closet she lives but incase you have not checked lately CD8 is a Republican district. If Gabby had crossover potential that is not such a bad thing. Remember John Kerry, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis? Democrats all to be sure and each one lost the general election.6/30/2006 09:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Yes, Mr. T, I may join you in CD5.

Our candidates don't even need to be challenged to a debate in order to publish their written acceptance of one.6/30/2006 10:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Look at how stupid the Republicans are when they post.

Interesting how they seem to support Gabby. I for one encourage anyone to change from Republican to Democrat. If they can't go there on that, I recommend registering as an independent.

Gabby being a Democrat is less a problem than the company she keeps, the donors she courts, and the votes that sold out Democrats and benefited corporations at the expense of the $5 contributors.

Maybe she will change for the better.6/30/2006 10:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Who is calling whom stupid? Gabby is the front running in fund raising on the Democratic side. It will take a skilled candidate who can raise a lot of money to win in a Republican district. Go ahead and vote for Patty or whomever you want.6/30/2006 11:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger CD8Dem|W|P|Its not that heavily republican Phx-Kid once you add in the independents. This is not the State of Maricopa we are talking about here. This is Southern Arizona - with that many independents and lousy GOP candidates - it's not going to be as hard as you make it sound. (I'm not saying its going to be a cakewalk either) Just keep in mind - things are a little different down here in Baja-Arizona.7/01/2006 06:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Cd8dem I agree. Here are the numbers.

40% Republican
34% Democrat
26% other

This is going to be a close one. I just think Gabby looks better in the general for the Democrats.

There was an article in the star a few weekends ago about how a Democrat was walking in Cochise County and the constituents were all talking about the border issue. My guess is that a lot of the independents are as concerned about this as other voting blocks. This would play to the favor of Graf or Hellon. If either on of them is facing Patty and she is out there talking about Mars and clean elections I think it stays a Republican seat.

If Gabby is in the general talking about education, heath care, and the border she would have an excellent chance against Huffman.

I am not sure about other line ups at this time.7/01/2006 08:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Once again, you have Repuplicans working against the interests of the Democrats by supporting Gabby.

Stupid? Smart? You decide.7/01/2006 08:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Anonymous why don’t you tell us whom you think it the best Democratic candidate to win in November and why.7/01/2006 09:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|It will be the Democrat that wins the primary, phxkid.

I don't support Republicans. People that do, have been conditioned to vote against their own self interests, and tend to favor unworkable solutions.7/01/2006 09:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|What an insightful strategy. You are sure to be victorious with such a keen grasp of the electorate.

I should call Mike, Steve, and Randy and tell them to just throw in the towel now.7/01/2006 09:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Yes, please make those calls. Its in your own self interest to not support them.7/01/2006 10:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|None of you are even guessing on the Graf line. I am so disappointed. So much so that I won't even answer you just yet until I get some lively discussion.

Emersome, I went out and did some meth last night. Now I can see where you got your numbers. Yes, it all makes sense now.

The point is not that Latas has some supporters. The point is you have a poll that really isn't one. Either his campaign doesn't know what a poll really is or they made something up to generate fundraising. No one takes it seriously. Maybe I am wrong and when the FEC reports come out we will see a huge surge from these 1600 supporters who will all kick in at least $20 each. I doubt it though.

Anyone have a tape of the infamous Willcox forum I can look at?7/01/2006 10:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Phx Kid, as an admitted "far right-leaning Republican", I can see why you want to promote Giffords. She is pretty easy for a Republican to beat in the general.

I said before I think she will be the primary candidate and lose in the general. Most of her supporters don't know her record and the few that do and still come here with weak arguments of support, don't know the machine they will be up against in the general.

My picks on who is hardest to beat in the general on the Democratic side:

1) Weiss
2) Rodriguez
3) Latas - (I would have put him 2nd until recently)
4) Giffords
5) Shacter

Johnson isn't really a Democrat so I won't even bother including him.

Giffords will get slaughtered by the Republicans for her inconsistencies in word over action not to mention they won't be above bringing in her personal life and have a field day there.7/01/2006 09:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Fedup -

I can see why you would not trust the opinion of a Republican. Maybe Patty is the strongest Dem for the general. She will need to talk about something other than clean elections and space colonies.

My guess is that she will talk about how she has always been in favor of a 50-foot fence on the border. Since she has never served in public office she has the luxury of making up her positions.

I still think Patty gets a little out on the edge on some issues and that will not suite her well with the Republicans and it will not play well enough with the independents to win in November. But by all means vote for Patty if you want to.

I think the only Republican who would get into Gabby’s personal life would be Huffman. Graf and Hellon are very committed to their positions and do not need to explore someone personal life. Huffman does not want to talk about his position on the issues because is so liberal and would loose the Republican base.

Anyone who brings up a candidates personal life will loose the independents very quickly. They do not want to hear personal attacks. They want to hear about solutions to issues.

Gabby has one big advantage over the Republicans. She can speak coherently at about twice the rate of them. They will have a hard time boxing her in when she can out talk them.7/02/2006 11:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|I went back and took a look at the Latas site. It's not a poll at all but you seem to get your panties all in a twist.

The Latas camp posted this a canvas numbers, that's all it is. Your way out of line and your reasoning is pretty bad. Your crediblity just took a big drive in my book. Why don't you go back to your Repug sites? Not enough conflict over there?7/02/2006 11:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|My last post was for Fedup.7/03/2006 11:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I think the only Republican who would get into Gabby’s personal life would be Huffman. Graf and Hellon are very committed to their positions and do not need to explore someone personal life

Tell that to Jim Kolbe. Graf didn't seem to have a problem with making a big deal out of his sexuality in the 2004 primary campaign.6/29/2006 07:19:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Paul Begala on Blitz Woofer's Situation Room yesterday:
WOLF BLITZER: So do the Tom Tancredos, the [Jim] Sensenbrenners, do they lose as a result of Chris Cannon's win? PAUL BEGALA: Yes! If, (pause) I love it when Republicans fight, it’s the Neanderthals versus the Cro-Magnons, OK? And so what happened here is the slightly more moderate position, the Bush position, on immigration prevailed. I didn't just prevail, it prevailed, as Tony [Snow, White House Press Secretary] said, by 12 points in a Republican only primary in Provo, Utah! Well, if bein', if having the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging position can't win you a primary in Provo, it's not going to save like say, J.D. Hayworth in Arizona who has a tough Democratic opponent.
Okay, here are some possible ways to compare Cannon's win to Hayworth's situation: Cannon was running in, what can be argued, is one of the most conservative Republican constituencies in the country, but won despite a more "moderate" stance on immigration, generally supporting President George Bush's plan. If a hard core anti-immigration conservative with that much money could still lose a Republican primary by a pretty decent margin (56-44), how good of an issue is this to run on? Of course, the counterspin is that the candidate, businessman John Jacob, lost for any number of reasons. Bush campaigned on Cannon's behalf, Jacob often equivocated on his anti-immigration position and towards the end, Jacob made some bizarre statements about some, uh, paranormal help that Cannon was getting for his campaign. (I'm sure that the claim that Lucifer was on board with him was unrelated to Bush helping Cannon) (Conservatives were unhappy with Jacob's campaign. Check the link for a nickname for Jacob I wish I'd thought of first) Also, despite this district being infra-red, it had been represented by a Democrat, Bill Orton, until 1996. One of the other things to consider is that Utah has a very high percentage of people who have spent time in other countries because of the large number of young Mormons that do foreign missionary duty. It is probably harder to stir up anti-immigrant sentiment among folks who have spent time abroad. Still, this was a Republican primary where the true believers vote, and the anti-immigrant (and anti-Bush) position did not carry the day. I heard a few snippets from a Cannon-Jacob debate a couple of weeks back. When it came to the immigration issue, Cannon was a master of finding the inconsistencies in Jacob's rhetoric and policy proposals. Harry Mitchell would be well advised to look up the transcripts. I don't think that this result is the equivalent of the sinking of the Titanic, as some in Mitchell's camp seem to be selling it, but it can't be good news for Hayworth, or for like minded candidates like Randy Graf. NB - I have tried to stay away from this all to easy "Red-Blue" metaphor. I went ahead and used it here. I appologize to my readers, friends and family, but most of all, God and my country. Oh, the "Blitz Woofer" thing is a tribute to Mike Royko and his creation, Slats Grobnik.|W|P|115159442958846520|W|P|Paul Begala on the CD 5 Race|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/29/2006 07:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Framer|W|P|Apples to Oranges my friend. CA-50 is far more applicable than the Utah race.

1. Cannon is a five term incumbent. Graf and Hayworth are not challenging an incumbent. The fact that Orton (D) stayed as long as he did was based on him being an incumbent.

2. It would be more appropriate to use AZ-8 two years ago as a better example. Imagine if Graf had the money that Jacob had in this year's climate. Think he would have improved on that 12 point margin in the Primary against Kolbe?

3. Cannon and Jacob were both Mormons running in a Mormon district. This alone makes the race different than any other race in the country. The dynamics of this are not really comparable.

4. Especially when Jacobs implied that Cannon's campaign could be somehow associated with the power of the Devil. Mormons just aren't going to take that about another Mormon unless it about is Harry Reid.

5. Provo, Utah is not Southern Arizona. If this were being used to forecast the illegal immigration vote in Idaho or Kentucky, it may be more useful. This is a border state. No one should have to point this out to Begala.

6. Begala is and always has been a blubbering idiot. If he says it, you can safely place money the other direction. He is pretty much the male Susan Estrich. Republicans hate James Carville, but recognize that he is dangerous, and often can see the trends. Begala on the other hand is a clown.

This was more about Jacob than about immigration. Anybody telling you different is trying to sell you something. The only big mistake Tancredo made was tying his banner to this particular race due to the other dynamics that led to this result. He would have been better off pouring the money into Graf's campaign as the odds of success are far better at this point.6/29/2006 09:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This is the most amazing misrepresentation of what happened. From what I understand none other than Sensenbrenner endorsed Cannon. How can this be a loss for Sensenbrenner if the guy he endorsed won? Wolf’s question is a false premise even before Begala opens his mouth.

Cannon was not only endorsed by President and Laura Bush but also by a lot of elected officials in the state. Plus he was the incumbent. Harry is not an incumbent for CD5; he plays the role of Jacob.

I know Harry has the endorsement of Woods and a few other has-been Republican moderates. I don’t think he will be getting Bush to support him like he supported Cannon.

Cannon actually has a fairly strong record in favor of doing something about the border. This race seems more about a dispute between Tancredo and other Republicans in the House. Jacob lost because he played the border issue against a congressman that was actually fairly strong on the border. I would not compare Cannon’s position to that of the presidents as Begala did. Cannon did not support the Senate bill on the border.

This would have been news if a moderate abortion on demand, gay marriage supporting homosexual had won the election in Provo. Given the relatively close positions of the two candidates and the fact that they were splitting hairs on the border it does not even rise to the level of news.

This election has absolutely nothing to do with CD8 unless the desert surrounding Provo has been trashed by border crossers and several Provo ranchers are tired of having their property destroyed and land trampled.6/30/2006 09:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Framer|W|P|Of course I would recommend that the Democreatic candidates in Arizona take Begala to heart and adopt the Senate Bill as their approach to immigration (or even better, get to the left of it).

That and sticking it to Walmart. With that platform Democrats would be unstoppable.6/30/2006 02:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Uh, the district that Orton represented was on the whole further south, and it shared a lot of territory with the district that Matheson represents today. Utah is all extremely red, but southern Utah has been known to be more friendly to Democrats than the rest of the state.6/28/2006 11:22:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I am having a great deal of trouble sleeping tonight, so don't be suprised when you see the time stamp on this entry. Of course, no matter what time I post, I get a comment within about ten or fifteen minutes. A lot of folks out in this here blogosphere are making a great deal out of Patty Weiss "accepting" Gabrielle Giffords's "offer to debate." To me, the whole thing smacks of a bit of campaign hyperbole. However, the campaigns seem to be taking this whole thing very seriously; the Giffords campaign sent me audio of the Willcox debate, and the Weiss campaign sent me the video. I just fast-forwarded to the good parts, you know, the car chases and things blowing up. Well, aside from whatever the merits are of the spin from the two campaigns, what makes anyone think that such a debate would even be covered by our local media? The Willcox debate featured five of the six candidates running in the Democratic primary (the always scarce Randy Graf surrogate Bill Johnson did not make it). Near as I can tell, this was the first appearance of this many of the candidates together in any forum. The only reporter that bothered to show up was from The Arizona Range News. Neither the Arizona Daily Star nor the Tucson Citizen thought to send a reporter to this event. The "debate challenge" has been totally unnoticed by both dailies, despite the best efforts of the Weiss campaign. In fact, a quick search of both papers for the term "Weiss" or "Giffords" gives no stories over the last week or so. Given that this race is rated nationally as one of the hottest in the country (second or third, depending on who you read), it would be nice if the local papers took notice. (The Pederson-Kyl race seems to have the same effect on the local press.) The Star and the Citizen have both said that they will not cover press conferences or most campaign appearances. It begs the question how they plan on covering the campaigns. I have to give some credit to new Star scribe Daniel Scarpinato, who has even been to some party meetings. He seems to be eager to do a good job. I just hope his bosses let him actually cover the campaign.|W|P|115156397175619962|W|P|If a Saguaro Falls in the Desert...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/29/2006 12:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Ted, I'm always up about this time of night. Check the times on most of my comments on your blog. Funny thing is, I've always been a 'morning person.' Go figure.

We (the Little Colorado River Democrats) are sponsoring a debate for the Democrats running in district one on July 20 in Winslow (at the La Posada, we are targetting (pending final details) a 7-9 PM forum.

We are getting local reporters to actually serve as the panelists-- if they get to ask what they think is important, it might get them to show up. Then they can write about it. I'd actually emailed an Arizona political blogger a few weeks ago about our forum, because I wanted to eventually feel that individual out about maybe being on the panel of questioners before bringing it up to the rest of the LCRD folks, but I never got a reply so we are just going the standard route and using newspaper writers. On the other hand, if one of them doesn't show at the last minute then yours truly is the 'backup' for filling in on the panel, in which case we'd have a blogger.6/29/2006 12:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger CD8Dem|W|P|Way to post a new topic to get the spotlight off you comparing a low-level staffer and a CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE as former Republicans Tedski.

Can't sleep tonight? I bet it’s those internal Giffords poll numbers that are keeping you up.6/29/2006 07:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|As somebody who spent coutless hours in the Willcox HS Auditorium. I have to say that according to my sources Patty Weiss came off a litte cold and condesending. Granted that the location is the spot of many unplanned children, and of my many devious schemes... I just hope that K-HIL did not come over the speakers during the debate to make Patty feel a little upstaged.6/29/2006 07:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski, I always search the Star and Citizen online thinking that I alone cannot find the political section.

I guess they enjoy ever-dwindling readership. The blogosphere owns political coverage in Southern Arizona. The newspapers are like dinosaurs caught in the tar pits.

The one bright point is the Tucson Weekly.6/29/2006 09:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Ted and Phx Kid:

Of course you all are so right abouat the coverage. I don't follow newspaper marketing studies of what people like to read and why people gravitate to other sources of info.

But I get the impression that there are a lot of political and news junkies out there that want to read and discuss federal, state, and local politics. We are not a majority, but my impression is that a small minority of people who are active readers is a constitutency that could bring some profit. Look at the growth of the blogosphere. That should tell some news outlets that there are people who hunger for political news at least (Not that our news sources should be like blogs).

I guess I am saying that if they want to give us what we want, I would think that a lot of people want these kinds of stories, but I may be wrong.

Any news marketers out there?6/29/2006 09:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Ok...a civics lesson for you CD8dem...

Most people get their party ID from their parents when they are growing up. If a person's family is Republican, then so are they. Most actually keep that party ID for a lifetime.

But, not always, as people age, get education, and change, people do change. It is a hard thing, studies say, to get people to change their party ID because they are invested in it and their sociological environment (peer pressure) invests them in it, and well, most people's environments don't change that much.

It is a big decision for some to change their party ID and it generally takes a sincere belief that the new place is right for you and the old place isn't.

I don't know Giffords' personal experience of why she changed her party. I am inclined to bet strongly that she grew up in a Republican family and was one even though her value set did not conform to the values of the party. That happened with me over time. OR...the party might have really changed its value set and drove her away, like it definitely did me. You can blame it on expediency or anything else you want, but I would like to hear her story from her...not you.

Last, I have been seeing a bunch of commenters trying to weave a nice little conspiracy of how Giffords is. The newest is that she always wanted to be CD8s Congresswoman, from the day before she ran for House rep. in our state house. It follows that she changed her registration years ago because Tucson and her district was majority Democrat, that she by-passed clean elections to build a warchest for this eventual day, etc. etc.

It appears to me that if she is as rich and ambitious as you all imply, that she would have simply moved to the east-side or the foothills to live, run as a Republican and then choose to run in this Republican dominated district or for freaking state office since this is a Republican state.

Questioning why she changed and blaming it on political ambitions is truly a BS argument.

On the money that she was saving to run for this offic when she did't run clean way way back whe she ran for office. Where is her political "warchest" of past donations?

When she ran in 2002 and 2004 and before. If you want to make warchest argument, then go find her donations from 2002 and 2004, see what she spent to stay in office, see what she banked, and then see if it is a significantly larger sum from donors than she would have gotten from the state in clean fund.

Even, then, though, it would really prove nothing.6/29/2006 11:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|The papers have so little coverage of the political races. I wonder if they will then have some editorial after the election about the sorry state of the voter participation...6/30/2006 01:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.6/30/2006 01:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Cold and thoughtless?

You opine, we post the real story:


This three minutes is more informative than Roger's impression of "Professor Pangloss looks into CD 8". I only hope Roger is one of Gabby's media consultants. Like the one who suggested she get affirmative about clean elections since Patty Weiss, and the other candidates were beating her up on that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangloss6/30/2006 06:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Of course it is more informative than my long take. It is a 3 minute soundbite, a potential commercial, and a well orchestrated, poll tested, media moment.

It is a beautiful brand of negative politics that points out a simple fact without context and then ignores what others might want to know about why. The answers/reasons are not so bad.

My take from the video, in a similar fashion as you, is the quote by Patty:

"I have been fighting for this issue since the beginning of my campaign."

Since January...like all other issues she seems to support now, but did not do much work on in her 20 years plus here in Arizona.6/30/2006 06:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Something a little more postive, from Arizona Congress Watch:

Gabrielle Giffords (D-8) has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO. Other candidates endorsed by AFL-CIO: Herb Paine (D-3), Ed Pastor (D-4), Harry Mitchell (D-5) and Raul Grijalva (D-7).

In addition, Giffords just received the endorsement of the public employees union.

Special interests, I guess, they are.6/30/2006 08:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger CD8Dem|W|P|Roger,

VOTES at the BALOT Box not Endorsements wins elections. (Just recall all the endorsements Elaine Richardson had in 2002, Howard Dean had in 2003/2004 - they really didn’t equate to votes at the ballot box did they?)

Patty was raised in Tucson: graduated from Palo Verde High school and went to the UofA. She has been in Arizona longer then 20 years!

I still would rather take someone who has been a life long Democrat who loves and knows the community over someone who up until 1999 was a registered Republican who lived (still does) a very privileged life having everything handed to her on a silver platter. WE DO NOT NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE GABBY IN DC! Power is for the people not for the privileged select.6/30/2006 09:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Cd8dem

I guess that rules out Latas. His humble custom home up in the gated Estates at High Mesa in Oro Valley is not exactly where the common folk hang out.

The one problem with your beloved Patty is that she would loose in November and the fast thinking, confident Gabby has a chance at winning.6/30/2006 09:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|The other problem is that Patty Weiss is hardly poor either, my friend CD8dem. A person's station in life does not necessarily make them elitist, snobbish, boorish, or unqualified.

In fact, I go back to the one thing many of you don't seem to be able to answer. The endorsements are tied directly to the record...the overall record...not the few votes you dredge up to score points.

You like your candidate, I like mine. You have reasons I am sure that Patty Weiss will be a great Congresswoman and I, and the many progressive groups that have endorsed Giffords, have a suitable number of reasons to vote for her. All...based on a firm record...and not campaign rhetoric.

And to play with this a bit more. Yes, Patty has been here for over 20 years you say. Besides Tucson Tommorrow and some community boards (which are admirable...oh...couldn't find Tucson Tommorrow on Google...just what is it???), has she ever been involved in Democrat party activities or progressive causes???? No one has yet told me of her activism.

Might this be why Giffords gets the endorsements of these groups? who fight for these issues like uworking families, environmental groups, women's rights, public safety, etc. That just doesn't sound elitist to me.

You are right...endorsements don't necessarily mean voters. Some of us aim to keep focusing on voters. But shouldn't they know that there is one candidate in this race that has supported these causes? And that it is Giffords?6/30/2006 09:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...and on the Republican thing. Some of you are quite the purists here...and so be it. The party switch is a non-issue as so many have described. My take on the soc called "elitist/ambitious party switch" attack.

This elitist ambition charge stinks to high heaven. IF she was so ambitious to run for this seat then she would have kept her Republican registration years ago, moved into the Republican areas of our county, ran for statehouse in a district like Huffman has, went to Phoenix and supported all that republican bunk, and then run in this race as a republican since it is a majority republican registration.

That would have been a much easier route for an ambitious person. Her switch, it appears to me and most, comes from the heart not from the wish to be Congresswoman.6/30/2006 09:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|A word for phxkid: Spellchecker.

A suggestion: back up predictions with facts that support your arguments.6/30/2006 09:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|Roger, you should keep repeating and repeating Gabby's negatives until they go away.6/30/2006 09:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Sorry about the speeling.

On which prediction would you like the facts?6/28/2006 04:46:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|We had a Democratic candidate for congress way back in 1992 named Jim Toeves who ran a suicide mission race against Rep. Jim Kolbe. Toeves, in his younger years, was a mover in the national Young Republicans and was one of the army of young supporters that helped Barry Goldwater win the presidential nomination in 1964. Toeves had, needless to say, gone through some changes in his life, most notably he had come out of the closet and had given up drinking. In a debate between the two Jims, Kolbe rebutted Toeves with some statement he had made when he had been in the Young Republicans three decades before. Toeves said, "That was when I was Republican and still drinking." It could be asked if the two conditions were related. Some hay has been made about Gabrielle Giffords's voter registration. Yes, her coming to the Democratic party was a bit later than some would like. She switched when she realized that what she believed was a heck of a lot more like the Democrats than the Republicans. I often hear complaints about Giffords's registration from Patty Weiss's supporters. Well, I find out today that Weiss has hired a woman named Lauren Harmon, who up until recently was an officer in the Young Republicans at ASU, and had served an internship in the White House. Before you hit the comment button: I'm actually happy to see this woman on board. Over the last few months, she has been attending Young Democrats events up in Phoenix, and has even given them money. See, she saw what they were about, then she saw what we were about. And hey, she picked us. This is exactly what we want, isn't it? I hope this puts the whole who was registered as what in what year thing to rest. Hey, if the Republicans can't even keep someone like this, this is election is totally ours. Heck, I'm far more offended that she is an ASU grad than any of the other stuff.|W|P|115153966015282964|W|P|They Were Republicans, So What?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/28/2006 05:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger NickNikosNicolas|W|P|I check your blog regularly. Nice work on the writing. I think you'll find this blog worth your time:http://mightygreekwritingmachine1.blogspot.com/

Satire; politics; swipes at all things including terrorism.6/28/2006 05:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Welcome Lauren! We are happy to have you on our side.

I would like to point out that if we are to start winning elections all over AZ we need more people who see the light to be welcomed by us.6/28/2006 05:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Look, Tedski, just because you guys can't win a Rose Bowl is no reason to be hatin on Lauren.

You know, being second best in football to Arizona State... well thats a good place for you guys to be. Being in the shadow of such a fine University...well that only makes you better!6/28/2006 06:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|I was a Republican who worked on a Democrat's campaign. There were many Republicans involved in it.

It's definitely an indication that the leading Republican in that district is too far to the right.6/28/2006 06:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mr Stapleton|W|P|tom-az

I wish ASU Basketball the best next season, I've been saying for years that they need to start playing against their opponent and not against the spread.

Someone forgot to tell them that these Wins and Loses are for games not for beating the spread.6/28/2006 08:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Who ever this new staff member is: she didn’t switch parties to run in a democratic district did she? She isn’t running for CD8 is she? Ok that’s what I thought.

Back to Giffords being a Republican until it was convenient enough to switch:
Gabby changed her address/re-registered multiple times EVEN AFTER she moved back from New York: each time checking off republican until it was time to run for AZ House. BIG DIFFERENCE!

(Now I wonder if the GOP thinks Weiss has this in the bag and they are sending a mole????)6/28/2006 08:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|tom-az

“such a fine University” I though Tempe Normal was just a teachers college. When did you guys get accredited as a University? Sometime after the U of A opened its doors in 1891.6/28/2006 09:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Ted Prezelski and Art Jacobsen=The Gifford's excuse team.

Nice, but Ted, don't you think you should be running for office rather than being the official Giffords apologist?6/28/2006 09:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Rimsza dropped out of the Secretary of State race. Jan will avoid a devise primary. Good luck to Israel.

http://thinkrightaz.blogspot.com/6/28/2006 11:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|I know logic has completely gone out the window on this blog, but how exactly is Giffords BEING a Republican the same as Weiss hiring a former one?

One is a candidate, the other works for a candidate. BIG difference.

The issue isn't that Giffords was a Republican, the issue is that she was a Republican right up until she decided to run for office as a Democrat.

I used to vote Republican, Democratic and Independent. However, I never changed my registration just to run for office.

Furthermore, you can hardly compare a young, college age woman coming into her own and exploring her identity and where she fits into the political spectrum with a grown woman in her late 20s deciding to change to win a seat.

Just when I was going to write something good about Giffords' campaign you give me more reason not to.6/28/2006 11:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|According to this, Lauren was 20 years old in Nov. 2005 which means she can't be more than 21 now.6/28/2006 11:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|And Tedski is silenced. He must be conferring with Team Giffords on how to do damage control since he opened his big mouth comparing a low level staffer to a Candidate WHO CHANGED only to run for office as a Democrat. Who is to say this new Weiss Staffer has even changed her registration? IT’S A JOB FOR HER AS A COMMUNICATIONS PERSON. BIG BIG DIFFERENCE FROM BEING A CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR OFFICE SWITCHING TO A FAVORABLE PARTY RIGHT BEFORE ITS TIME TO GET VOTES!
(Not taking into account once she was in office, voting against Democratic ideals the first few years until she started grooming her votes for a run for Congress. - Giffords is a nice person too bad her bloggers Tedski and TheDataPort are giving her a bad image.)6/28/2006 11:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|On the other hand, given that as recently as March she was vying for First Vice Chair of the College Republican Party and was their Communication’s Director...it could mean she is a mole. No one has a complete reversal in 3 months or less.

Clearly the campaign had to know her background when hiring her so they are either desperate for help or something is really odd in that campaign. I would be interested in learning more about her background. Maybe she is a double agent working for Nathan Sproul.

Or maybe Patty is really a Republican. Has anyone checked her registration files to see when she became a Democrat?6/28/2006 11:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Patty became a Democrat on her 21st Birthday from what she has said at Public forums. (Before the voting age was lowered to 18)6/28/2006 11:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Became should be registered Democrat. She was born a Democrat - it's in her blood – she is not an opportunity democrat like some of her opponents.6/28/2006 11:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|All y'all-

I didn't get this from the Giffords campaign. In fact, they knew nothing about it before I posted it.6/28/2006 11:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|The plot thickens:
"- Who is lying? Show me proof that Kara Karlson's team members haven't been saying awful stuff. I've overheard some of it myself and I can tell you that Lauren Harmon and Kara Karlson, and their whole team are doing nothing but playing dirty politics. They are NOT good leaders, they will NOT do a good job, and they are NOT the kind of people who should be allowed by our federation to hold positions any longer on our state board."

Ms. Harmon it seems, was involved in her own little scandal within the College Republicans and in response, deleted her entire blog. Oh what treasures we might have found there.

She sounds like a total opportunist on this blog. This could only be a dumb move on the Weiss' campaigns part.

Like I always say, politics makes strange bedfellows.6/29/2006 12:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.6/29/2006 12:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|It's not like this Lauren chic is a high-level/profile operative for Weiss. She is probably just working for some summer cash for her self and nothing more. I don't think from her title mentioned on the Weiss website she is going to be calling any shots on the Campaign Trail.

Getting back to the main point of all this:

Giffords was a Republican until moments before she ran (not taking part in clean elections) in a Democratic leaning district.

6/29/2006 12:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|anonymous,

Your point is well taken. I made the same point. Comparing apples to oranges. It doesn’t let Giffords off the hook.

Regardless, having this Lauren person on the staff in any position is risky. Campaigns work closely, information is shared. You need people you can trust. It seems a very odd hire considering the position is for a scheduler which is not a job requiring a lot of political skill. Lauren seems over-qualified and they could have easily filled that position through any political hiring agency. Why hire her? I doubt it is merely a summer job for cash and if it is, does a campaign really want someone in there who has no other loyalty than a paycheck? You can hire people like that anywhere. They probably could have gotten a volunteer to do that job even.

It sounds like either the young woman knows someone in the campaign that led to the job, or the campaign is desperate for people. Not to hire a Democrat knowing this would get out doesn’t make a lot of sense in a primary about Democratic values. It will be pretty easy for an opposing campaign to dig into Lauren’s background and her activities with the College Republicans and find a way to use it. Weiss’ campaign manager had to know that going in, so why hire her?

After my reprimand to Ted, I need compliment him on finding this out so quickly. It never would have occurred to me to Google staff members’ names.

Interesting that Giffords does not publish her entire staff list like Weiss does. Hmm.6/29/2006 12:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|I wonder how long it will take the Weiss camp to get rid of Lauren? Way to go Tedski - cost someone a job.6/29/2006 05:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|You anti-Giffords people are a bunch of morons.
As a young person (anyone in their 20s is still formulating her personality) Giffords registered as a Republican.


She is a DEMOCRAT. Her voting record is progressive. She supports choice, funding for education, opposes the war in Iraq and yes, SHE SUPPORTS CLEAN ELECTIONS!

The kind of mentality you idiots are showing is the reason why Democrats lose so many elections.
When Giffords wins the CD8 primary, will you be LOYAL DEMOCRATS and support her candidacy?

Giffords has stated from DAY ONE that she will back the winner of the primary. Have any of the other so-called Democratic candidates made the same pledge?

Thanks for getting my blood pressure up at 5:30 a.m. Now I can go to work with a full head of steam.6/29/2006 07:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Fed Up-

Calm down, I doubt that this woman is a plant. From what I understand her conversion is rather total.

The rest of y'all...I did nothing but say nice things about her getting hired, and your criticism glands went nuts. What is up with that?6/29/2006 09:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Lauren Harmon|W|P|Okay, this is Lauren.

I have to admit, it was pretty surprising to wake up today and see this kind of stuff posted about myself on a blog that I read regularly. Definitely wasn't expecting that one. But I would like the chance to explain a few things about where I'm coming from.

First of all, I think it's pretty silly to drag me into this. I'm 21 years old, and if the worst mistake I make in my youth is being a College Republican... well, we should all be so lucky.

Yes, I was a College Republican. Yes, I had an internship in the Bush White House. But you know what? My conscience got the better of me. I got really tired of hearing otherwise rational people say terrible things like "we should shoot illegal immigrants as they come over the border" or "poor people are lazy, let them starve to death!"

They told me that thinking you can change the world is stupid, because people are bad and evil and always will be. I don't buy that-- I want to change things, I KNOW we can make things better for all of us!, and I see the Democratic party working in the same direction.

So yes, I quit my White House internship and came back to AZ to work on things that really matter to me, like getting good, progressive Dems elected in this state.

I'm proud of my story, and I think comparing my change of heart to Gabby Giffords' change of registration is foolish. I'm not running for office, I didn't even want my name bandied about in all this. I just wanted to work for what I believe in. Gabby, on the other hand... I see her changing registration just because she thought she could get the seat that way. And that's wrong.

Straightening out a few more things...

1. I didn't engage in dirty campaigning. But when every College Republican wants to be the next Karl Rove, you can imagine the lengths they'll go to to stir up dirt about good people. won't get into the politics of it-- because being on this ticket was one of the things that just really turned me off from being a Republican-- but I did want to get that out there.

2. I'm not on staff. Would I love a little extra summer cash? Sure, any college student would. But as of right now, I'm a volunteer who's doing some scheduling for Patty. I'm not sure how much damage an ex-Republican can do to a candidate's schedule, but I assure you I'll try to avoid screwing things up too much :)

3. Yeah, 3 months is a pretty short amount of time to have a "full and total" conversion. But when you have that "come to Jesus" moment... well, you just do. And I had been sick of the way Republicans were acting for months. My whole deal was that I wanted to change things from within-- but you know, the Republicans are moving further and further away from open & honest government, and I just can't get behind that. I don't want to play ball with those people. And I have to tell you, I have never been so relieved to lose as I was when I didn't become 1st Vice.

4. GO DEVILS!! This is our year for football...6/29/2006 12:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Lauren Harmon|W|P|By the way, if anyone is interested in actually *talking* to me about why I've become a Dem... I'll be at Drinking Liberally tonight, and would love the chance to chat with some of you.
I'm the red-head with a Patty button, shouldn't be too hard to spot me!
:)6/29/2006 12:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Hey Lauren, thanks a bunch for posting!

Glad to hear you have found the error of your ways and switched to the side of light, truth, justice and all that. :)

I hope you have a great summer, have a great experience working for Patty ... well, until the actual primary, when I hope Giffords wins. Until then though!6/28/2006 07:47:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Patty Weiss took a bit of a break from accepting unissued debate challenges to take a shot at Republican Steve Huffman. With all the bricks flying among the Democrats, I was worried we didn't have any left to throw at the Republicans. We all think of Huffman as the "moderate" Republican candidate, but this also means he has been supported by the Republican buisiness organizations and lobbyists that are often just as much part of the problem as the looney tunes wing of the party . I'm glad to see Weiss calling Huffman out on this.
Weiss Calls on Huffman to Return Lobbyist Funds Republican Legislator was "Wined and Dined" to the Tune of Almost $5,000
TUCSON, ARIZ. – In a series of news articles about lobbyist influence at the Arizona State Legislature, it was reported that lobbyists spent almost $5,000 on District 8 Congressional candidate state Rep. Steve Huffman (R-26) for food, beverages, travel and entertainment. These funds came from lobbyists representing many interests including tobacco companies, out-of-state electric utilities and real estate developers who had a stake in legislation on which Huffman voted. "If this is not an example of pay-for-play, I don't know what is," said District 8 Democratic Candidate Patty Weiss. "We need representatives in Washington who will stand up to the corporate special interests, not line their pockets with gifts from lobbyists. Rep. Huffman should immediately return these funds." In the course of her campaign to become Congressional District 8's Citizen Representative in Washington, Weiss has proposed an ethics reform package that includes airtight bans on gifts and dramatically-discounted flights on corporate jets, and publicly-funded Congressional elections based on Arizona's Clean Elections model.
|W|P|115150673810722165|W|P|Weiss Challenges Huffman|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/28/2006 08:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski, great to see some ink attacking Huffman.

A case could be made that he is the Republican who cannot win in November. One reason is that the “looney tunes wing” of the party will not come to the aid of Steve. He ate lunch with the fat cats and they can put him office. Certainly the pro-life social conservatives in the GOP are not going to spending October (Respect Life Month) walking door to door for ‘ol Steve. Maybe Click and Diamond will do some precinct walking to support their boy.6/28/2006 08:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I agree with Patty and her campaign on this strategy.

I would like to see all of the candidates going after the prize and not each other.

Frankly, it makes her look more like a frontrunner to attack who she will be facing in the fall.

Wise advise to all of the candidates...although...I know they have taken on republicans on the campaign trail, it just hasn't been reported much.

Giffords did it by going after Congress for the pay raise, but not so much directly at Huffman, Hellon, and Graf.

Roger6/28/2006 08:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Question...I don't have the list...has Huffman or the other candidates gone to lunch on the Center for Arizona Policy or Len Munsil, like I saw with some on the overall list.

Roger6/28/2006 08:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Phx Kid-

I hope you know, I don't consider you "Looney Tunes," you are more like "Merrie Melodies..."

I kid because I love.6/28/2006 09:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|no offense taken. It’s funny how people are called “looney” except when they are out in the Tucson summer walking for you candidacy. Then they are loyal supporters. I think this happens in you party as well. Nobody wants the dailykos crowd until it is time to walk a precinct in July.6/28/2006 03:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Just a very quick remark, Tedski, to let you there are those of us that do appreciate your humor.

Laugh pretty hard here on a semi-regular basis. Folks down the hall heard me when I read first line of this original post.

Thanks6/30/2006 02:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|No, Huffman has not gone to lunch with the Center for Arizona Policy or Len Munsil.

And big deal, so over 8 years in office he's met with lobbyists? As Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, he's accomplished more for the Arizona economy during his service than Patty or Gaby ever have. That is, unless you count overcharging people for tires at El Campo to be good for the economy.

There's a reason why Jack Furrier used to advertise that everything was included in their prices and that's because El Campo was infamous for added charges.6/27/2006 05:07:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, Rush Limbaugh was caught with Viagra that he probably wasn't supposed to have after a Carribean vacation. So that leads me to ask why he needed Viagra. Then it makes me think about things and generated images for me that have ruined me for a week. Thanks.|W|P|115145367593735009|W|P|The Quicker Picker Upper|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/27/2006 05:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, like most big 'family values' guys, he's been through what, three failed marriages by now?6/27/2006 06:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Abstinence until marriage! And then, after marriage, chemically-assisted boonie calls!6/27/2006 06:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|The photo of Limbaugh in the article you linked makes him look more than a little like L Ron Hubbard.

Coincidence? Or something more?6/27/2006 06:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Slap on the wrist has shown to be a great deterent in his case...maybe this time they can throw the book at him and see if that works.6/27/2006 07:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|Viagra and Oxycontin do look alike.6/27/2006 08:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Slow news day Ted? I guess that you did not want to conver this

http://www.goldwater4governor.org/docs/efe_apology.pdf6/27/2006 08:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|he just wanted to make it special for my birthday PhxKid.

And what else is more special then the image of Rush Limbaugh needing Viagra for his non-wife?6/28/2006 05:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|Be nice guys remember he has no spine, and viagra is the only way he can keep upright.6/28/2006 04:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Okay folks-here is what El Rushbo said on Tuesday's show about his little "Caribbean vacation."

Rush: "You know they have high speed internet down in the Dominican Republic. Really, they do. As you know I was down there on a guys only vacation."

Hmmmmm. Viagra+guys only vacation=Gay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, but when I go out on a guys only trip (usually hunting elk near Williams, the one I can assure you I will not pack is viagra.

Seriously, the DR is known as a "sexual vacation" for single men looking to hook up with teenage hookers. I would love for someone to get that on the fat bastard.6/27/2006 09:54:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Former Avondale Mayor Ron Drake was spotted at McMahon's Prime Steakhouse meeting with local Republican leaders to plan strategy for his congressional race against Raúl Grijalva. One of the people he met with was one-time-talked-about Republican CD 8 candidate Christine Olson. One of the topics discussed was how to win over the Hispanic vote on the West and South sides of Tucson. Well, one way to do it may be to actually visit the district, and to talk to people who live there. Meeting over at the corner of Swan and Fort Lowell with people who wouldn't be caught dead at a South or West Side restaurant probably isn't an effective way to campaign in CD 7. But what would I know? Heck, Christine Olson is still listed as National Committee Woman for the Pennsylvania Republican party. I'm not sure what special local expertise she has aside from being married to Lute Olson. Maybe Drake thinks that Susquehanna County is part of the district. The least I can say is at least McMahon's is in the city limits. Most of the time when Maricopa County Republicans grace our area, the closest they come to Tucson is a foothills country club. Too bad Lute's old restaurant didn't stay open; it was in CD 7. A fundraising letter went out on Drake's behalf from Tom & Diane McCarthy to folks affiliated with WESTMARK, an economic development authority in the West Valley. In it, Drake touts bringing NASCAR to the area, among other things. But the most interesting part is his "conservative voting estimate." This isn't a poll, but his view of the scenario that lets him win this race. It doesn't actually give him a win; he gives numbers that give him a tie vote. I guess he's hoping he wins on penalty kicks: La Paz: Drake 2,800 (62%), Grijalva 1,800 (39%) Maricopa: Drake 15,000 (58%), Grijalva 11,000 (42%) Pima: Drake 42,000 (42%), Grijalva 58,000 (58%) Pinal: Drake 8,000 (67%), Grijalva 4,000 (33%) Santa Cruz: Drake 4,000 (44%), Grijalva 5,000 (56%) Yuma: Drake 24,000 (60%), Grijalva 16,000 (40%) Total: Drake 95,800 (50%), Grijalva 95,800 (50%) The table also includes John McCain's 2004 vote totals, I guess to show that this is "doable." This number is only useful if Drake thinks that somehow Grijalva will drop out in favor of Stuart Starky. The funny thing is, the "esitmate" assumes Drake will get more votes in the Pinal County portion of the district than McCain did. Given that McCain is the Republicans' top vote getter, fat chance of that happening. Drake also assumes he will get twice as many votes in Yuma County than did 2002 candidate Ross Heib, who was from there and had been elected there too. I realize that part of campaigning is convincing folks you will win. You can't get too many contributions saying "Grijalva will beat me like a gong." But, this just seems delusional. NB - This Diane McCarthy who sent this letter, is she the same Diane McCarthy played chambermaid for APS and SRP on the Corporation Commission in the 1980's?|W|P|115142876681510116|W|P|Ron Drake Campaign Update|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/27/2006 01:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|At least they went to a pretty good steakhouse.6/27/2006 02:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|Yes - it's the same Diane McCarthy.

Why Drake thinks that anyone from Southern Arizona or Yuma will even look at him is the mystery. Unlike most AZ congressional districts, this is one where the Phoenix candidate is actually at a disadvantage. Most voters don't even know that the districts extends all the way to Avondale - and is anyone from Tucson actually going to vote for someone who wants to take credit for Phoenix getting another event? Yeah right.

If he could take credit for former Tucsonan Robert Sarver buying the Suns and moving training camp to McKale he might get some traction.6/27/2006 02:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Didn't Raul have a fundraiser here one time?6/27/2006 03:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|So candidates for office aren't allowed to strategize or eat food outside their district?

I think we have bigger things to rip Drake with than this ... in fact this seems pretty petty.6/27/2006 03:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|And whoever saw them there even reported on what they were discussing?

Sounds like maybe next time they should meet at somebody's house.6/27/2006 03:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|You say the table assumes that 'Drake will get more votes in the Pinal portion of the district than McCain did.' But I don't see Pinal listed in your chart.6/27/2006 04:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Eli- I'm sorry, I forgot to include the Pinal County numbers. I've added them.

Mr T- He can eat and strategize anywhere he wants...we have both worked for candidates who think they can win by talking to "key people" who will take care of things, I guess he thinks he can win this this way rather than talking to actual voters. I wouldn't have even noted it, 'cept it is the closest thing to a "public event" that he has had in Tucson thus far.6/27/2006 05:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Why did you emphasize this being OUT of District 7 with a huge map?

Do you even live in CD7 Tedski?6/27/2006 07:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I live one block outside of CD 7. Did you want to come over or something?6/27/2006 08:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Why did you emphasize this being OUT of District 7 with a huge map?6/28/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I didn't think the map was that big. I remember in Blogger College that they said that visuals were important.6/28/2006 09:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Ok Tedski- your missing my point.

You made a big deal about Drake meeting at McMahons OUTSIDE of District 7. Raul has had meetings here and has even attended a fundraiser for himself at this very steak house. Why is it ok for Raul to meet and dine (and fundraise) at McMahons but if Drake does it, he is out of touch with the District?6/28/2006 11:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Anonymous-

This is the first "event" of Drake's I have even heard of down here. He hasn't had, as far as I know, any sort of events on the South or West sides of town.

This seems to follow a Republican campaign pattern down here: have a few press conferences, hobknob with the foothills types, then wonder why no one in Tucson proper wants to vote for you.6/27/2006 07:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A poll was released last week that showed that Patty Weiss had a ten point lead over Gabrielle Giffords. So, if Patty is the front runner, why has she decided to go negative against one of her opponents. I mean, no need to, since she is so far ahead, right? Weiss's campaign is taking Giffords on for not taking Clean Elections money. Apparently, the only way to support the Clean Elections system is taking the money. Weiss at a candidate forum in Willcox on Saturday:
Gabby, Gabby, Gabby... [laughter] Gabby says she absolutely believes in clean elections. she says she has voted to protect arizona's clean elections laws. and that may be the case. in 2000, Gabby Giffords had the opportunity to run clean elections and chose to take special interest money. in 2002, gabby had opportunity to run clean elections and took special interest money. and in 2004, Gabby had the opportunity to run clean elections and took special interest money. This is the most important issue we have talked about today. Nothing good is going to be accomplished in Congress until we have publicly financed congresional campaigns. I have stood up for this issue since day one of my campaign and I pledge to you, I will run clean elections, I will fight for clean elections, because that is the only way we will be able to fight for you.
Giffords was part of several efforts to turn back Republican legislation that would have defunded Clean Elections. Efforts sponsored, by the way, by Republicans who had run clean (some of whom are running Clean again!) By Patty's logic, sponsors of anti-Clean Elections legislation like Rick Murphy and Laura Knaperek are much better at protecting the system, since they've taken Clean Elections money. In the past, I've pointed out the times such as this that Giffords had turned back really gawdawful Republican legislation, and some of my readers have pooh-poohed this as parliamentary tricks or not really that important. Funny thing, given that whoever wins this race stands a pretty even chance of serving in the minority party, knowing ways to use the system to stop bad legislation will be a big part of the job desciption. By the way, Howard Dean opted out of the public financing in his last presidential campaign. I expect that Weiss will confront him about this when he visits on Thursday. Oh, I hope she brings her campaign manager, Frank Costanzo, with her. He did work for him, after all. I know that Weiss, given her previous occupation, was probably unable to give political contributions. But, while her husband was giving money to Jon Kyl's campaign, did he see fit to donate to the Keep It Clean committee when Clean Elections was under threat? Didn't think so. Weiss has a diary on Daily Kos where on Sunday she makes her point about this, but also demands that Giffords release her internal polls.
Is Gabby unwilling to stand up and defend her actions? Did she change her opinion of public financing when she saw the results of her issues poll that she won't make public? She certainly can't change her record.
Giffords hasn't released her polls? Of course not. Weiss released the results of two questions on a rather detailed poll. Given she has only released the narrow slice of what she thinks is favorable to her, it is silly for her to criticize Giffords for not releasing her numbers. What is it on her poll, which shows her leading, that says that she has to go negative? The public needs to know, right? By the way, few campaigns release their internal polls. That's why they are called "internal." Another knock on this line is that Giffords won't tell her staff about the polling. I don't think this is true in this case, but it happens occasionally. Grijalva's campaign in 2002, for example, kept their polling very close to the vest, because they didn't want the staff to slack off if they found out how far ahead they were. In that diary, Weiss denies going negative. I don't live in a Political Cloudcuckooland; I know that "negative" is not always "bad." Pointing out what you percieve as flaws in your opponent's campaign is sometimes necessary and can be instructive to voters, it is still negative though. To deny this is just spin.|W|P|115142180008063526|W|P|Weiss Goes Negative?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/27/2006 09:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Anyone who has been following the blogs, commenting, and posting knows that the negativity of the supporters of the other campaigns have gone to great lengths to tarnish Giffords in order to support their candidate. Not all, but many.

Just as a response, in at least two of Giffords races, she faced minimal opposition. In one, unopposed but for a Libertarian. She did not need to really campaign or take the time to solicit donors for $5 increments. Gave her time to do her job which was to govern...what the voters of LD 28 put her in there to do.

Furthermore, taking public money when there is really no campaign to be done only raises charges that the person took tax payer dollars to run shell campaign designed only to raise their name recognition.

In the last city council election, Councilman Steve Leal faced such charges by many including the Tucson Weekly for even considering taking city clean election money when he faced no opposition. Even though the money could have been used to activate and draw out Democratic voters...and to support his colleagues...he did not.

Last, the attackers go to great lengths. I have never thought of my self as anyone all that powerful or important, but I have been the subject of an attack as well...just for defending Giffords from these baseless rumors and attacks.

A noted Latas supporter and manager of the blog Gilamonsterville (http://gilamonsterville.blogspot.com) found what he thought was an attack by me on Patty Weiss in the Citizen comments section. He then posted it with great glee to go after me for being the attack artist. I hope you all will read his blog sometime or ask around about his frequent attack jobs on it.

The problem with his post is this, I never posted it or commented on that story in the Citizen. Someone somewhere used "Roger H." which I have posted under in the Star and Citizen to post comments under my name attacking Weiss and then to make it appear as if I was supporting Steve Huffman or Graf.

All I ask is that some of you who read this will please consider the hatchett job being done on Giffords and ask yourself why?

Have a fantastic day!

Roger6/27/2006 10:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Not that I live in your district, but I've been following this race with interest, and to date I've managed to avoid posting this here for probably a record six weeks, but it sounds like I have to go back into broken record mode:

Our experience in CD 1 in 2002 was instructive-- we had about six candidates, and there were enough hard feelings from the primary that it was not possible to bring people together in time before the general. The result was that a flood of eastern, Republican money (most of it, we now know, donated and spent illegally) swept in a little known former Kyl staffer from Virginia, who we are now stuck with in what should have been a Democratic district.

So: my only advice (based on this unfortunate experience) is that y'all have a great opportunity down there to pick up a seat for the good guys. Don't blow it by getting too disunited during the primary.6/27/2006 10:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Good advice Eli and I was thinking about what you had said months ago this morning.

I have declared over and over that I would support any of the fine candidates in this race over the Republican in the fall. Yeah, im an independent and it may not set well with some, but I am in the right place I think.

I have gotten heated, angry, and blogged like the dickens so that some of this skunk doesn't stick to Giffords...and I got heated enough to ask what the other candidates have done that is so purely liberal. Maybe I shouldn't have, but man Eli, they can be infuriating and they are pretty desperate to win.

What is your sage advice? I'm asking sincerely. Does she not answer the charges and let it pile on like it did with John Kerry. Do we have to let them unfairly label her?

On the other hand, by responding, she gives them legitimacy and even credibility in their charges (as I may have done by combatting them), it takes her off her message and her work in this campaign.

The strategy being used here by those attacking is not a "frontrunner" strategy...it is about getting mud or blood in the water and raising name rec.

Like Ted, I don't know why Patty Weiss would want to do that given that she clearly is well liked and has the name rec. already.

Roger6/27/2006 11:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Roger, to answer your question of why Patty is taking this route:

The biggest knock against Patty (from you and other Gabby supporters) is that she doesn't have real progressive street cred, while running against someone who does.

By pointing out that Gabby talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk on clean elections, she's sending a message to the hard-core Democratic base who are watching the race (and the blogs) this far out.

Honestly, I think the campaign is a bit surprised at the traction Patty got on this issue -- but Gabby opened the door at the Willcox forum, so Patty ran with it.

I would be very surprised if this is the tone you see from either camp in mid-October, when they're in the midst of their get-out-the-vote efforts.6/27/2006 11:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Where are the quotations, Tedski?

We can't tell where Patty's words end and your commentary begins.6/27/2006 11:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|AZulikeit,

I think you make my point. She is attacking because she doesn't have the street cred on these issues and Giffords does.

Her staff picks and chooses a few issues or votes that might draw concern out of hundreds and then uses it to label her as not "walking the walk."

This is all because she hasn't walked the walk herself.

If she wants to convince people of her qualifications then throw them out there. If she wants to convince people she is better for the district, have her do it with action and grace.

Then, if she is really really right. People will see it. Using her opponent as a foil will not bring her the street cred on the issues that she is attempting to promote. I hope that she will work for them...she is now when she stays on message and promotes causes.6/27/2006 12:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Being completely sincere here-- what is the point of having a Clean Elections system when candidates opt out of it? If you really believed in the system, you would run under it.

I don’t think Patty was trying to say that someone like Laura Knaperek is a better supporter of Clean Elections than Gabby just because LK ran clean—that’s just absurd—but how could Gabby claim to totally support something when she has the opportunity to participate in it… and just doesn’t??

A lot of reasons have been tossed around about why Gabby didn’t run clean, but most of them look pretty bunk to me.
For example, the idea that she couldn’t run clean because she was in a “competitive” district. Um, has everyone forgotten our governor? I’d say she was in a *fairly* competitive election, but she still ran clean… and obviously won (and will win again this November!). So saying that Gabby couldn’t run clean because her race was too hot just doesn’t make any sense to me.

Okay, so the Howard Dean thing. This is a completely different situation. Opting out was a decision made not based on polling data, but on polling his supporters. This is an apples-to-oranges comparison, anyway. In our Clean Elections system here, we have a matching provision. You get money if your opponent spends more than you. That’s not the case in a presidential election, there’s a spending cap, and had Dean been the nominee and pledged to run clean, he would have been massively outspend by a really well-financed Bush campaign. He opted out so that he could continue to take small contributions from his broad-based support around the country… not so that he could take special interest money from Wal-Mart and Diebold.

What this comes down to is that Gabby’s reasons for not running clean just don’t add up! The system is called CLEAN Elections for a reason—it’s not about a more or less competitive district, it’s not about whether you need the money or not. It’s about getting special interest money OUT of politics. With that as your bottom line, nothing Gabby is saying to defend herself rings true.6/27/2006 12:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|[Continued...]

On to the Kos diary. Patty never asked Gabby to release her numbers, she just asked rhetorically if Gabby’s position changed after seeing the polling data—this is obviously not the same thing.

I really don’t think Patty feels she needs to go negative in this race. But when Gabby stood up and made flagrantly hypocritical statements at the Willcox forum, I think Patty really felt she had to call her on it. And it’s not like Patty was the first to do it, Latas did too.

This is such an important issue to pursue—this election is so much about restoring integrity to Washington, and I want a candidate who is actually going to follow through with what they say. Gabby seems to want people to believe she’s going to run a clean federal election if the opportunity arises, but I just don’t think she’s credible on that issue. Anybody who is truly committed to cleaning up government would have run clean, given the opportunity. And Gabby didn’t. I think that says a lot about where she really stands on this.6/27/2006 12:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Saying Gabby has more crediblility than Patty Weiss, is like saying that Hillary Clinton has more credibility than Walter Cronkite.

Roger is as credible as Gabby, with his specious twists and turns at the keyboard. He is a loyal soldier... and you know what usually happens to loyal soldiers.

Patty doesn't need 'street cred' anymore than Gabby does. Patty is taking advantage of an opening that Gabby gave her for free.

This exercise is about winning votes, not getting some kind of gangland street cred.6/27/2006 12:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Actually this is starting to hurt Gabby, Gabby, Gabby in more ways than one.

Latas is hammering the corporate legislator level and Patty scored points on the clean elections.

Gabby's supporters right now all they can do is whine about everyone going negative.6/27/2006 12:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Anon:

"Roger is as credible as Gabby, with his specious twists and turns at the keyboard. He is a loyal soldier... and you know what usually happens to loyal soldiers."

So, what does happen to loyal "soldiers" as you put it anon?

I know one thing that happens. People sign up and pretend to be you on the Tucson Citizen and then try to link you to the candidate you are supporting. How Rovian!!!

Are you suggesting that people like you will bring me down? Like you try to do with candidates? Or are you suggesting that I am looking for favors?

If the latter you are way way off base. Perfectly happy doing what I am doing right now. Never been offered anything or asked for it. I like teaching, research, and public service in my field.

If the former then you are dispicable.

George...true true...some of us can see right through it...we see it coming through how Latas is attacking Giffords on one hand and Weiss is attacking on the other.

It is pretty shameful, but appears to be a nice marriage of interests between the two of them. Weiss and Latas for Congress...or maybe it is "anyone but Giffords."

Nice strategy...I hope it doesn't backfire on you...and it does...does...does look desperate.

But it might work...and it would be a real shame.6/27/2006 12:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Roger, do you actually think that clean elections and special interest money are just "a few issues out of hundreds"?

They are THE issues. NOTHING is more important than the fact that we have a Congress that is COMPLETELY beholden to the special interests who fund their campaigns.

Everything else, from Iraq to Medicare, boils down to special interest donors pulling the strings.

The fact that Gabby continues to take that unclean money while voting for clean elections is a huge problem, and not some trivial attack. It comes down to integrity.

As for Patty's street cred, she was working for positive change in Southern Arizona while Gabby was going to her high school prom. It's all spelled out on her website.

From Tucson Tomorrow to the Community Foundation to her work with numerous U of A departments and TUSD, Patty's history as a community activist is not a secret. A voting record is not the only way (and quite likely not the best way) to establish your street cred.6/27/2006 12:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|It's not negative in any way to say Giffords's didn't run under Clean Elections. That's simply fact.

It is negative to take that a step farther and impute Giffords doesn't support Clean Elections. The conclusion does not automatically derive from the statement.

As has been pointed out numerous times, Giffords has been active in defending the Clean Elections laws. If that's not support ... well, then that word "support", I don't think it means what you think it means, senor.6/27/2006 12:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|She said she 'absolutely' supports clean elections.

She did not say she 'absolutely but passively with reservations' supports clean elections.6/27/2006 01:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|By my definition, not running under Clean Elections does indicate that she doens't support the system-- and she certainly doens't support it "absolutely," as quoted in Willcox. Absolute support, for me, implies involvement at every possible level, clearly requiring that Gabby actually *run clean.*

Even if we go by your definition, Gabby may *support* Clean Elections in terms of a legislative vote... but she certainly can't claim to *believe* in it. If she did, she would have jumped at the chance to use Clean Elections money rather than taking contributions from the special interest lobbyists.

So either she doesn't support it or she doens't believe in it. You pick.6/27/2006 01:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|No, I think you are setting up a false delimma too, ZD.

Clearly she supports it, as noted by her voting record. I would state, considering she's defended the law every time it's come up in the legislature, that she "absolutely" supports it. (This applies to your comment too Anon).

There are many reasons for supporting the law and still not running under it. The legal issue already covers 2000. For 2002 and 2004 I can, without much thought, conceive two ideas for not using the public funding, neither of which align with your thesis:

1. She did not wish to claim tax payer money unnecessarily.

2. She wanted continued experience as a fund-raiser for potential future campaigns.

Now, I have no idea whatsoever if either (or both) of the above apply. Giffords doesn't confide in me. However, either or both could apply, and be consistent with supporting clean elections while not running under them.6/27/2006 01:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|Then she absolutely supports clean elections, with reservations. But especially for everyone else. She takes special interest money to save us tax dollars (from speeding tickets, etc.).

She is above the influence that her donor base expects for their contributions, and she owes them no more than she owes the $5 contributor.

If she is this good, then she's really good!6/27/2006 01:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|As an insider who frequented some of the same circles as Gabby, she thought the Clean Elections' strict accounting and compliance was a real hassle. She wanted to get a tight fund-raising operation together for future campaigns, such as CD 8.6/27/2006 02:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|It may very well be true she felt experience in fund-raising for her state campaigns would help if she ran for national office. If so, based on the last known fund-raising data, she'd be correct.

Still, that is not the same as "having reservations" as SAOL puts it.6/27/2006 02:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Oh Tedski.....

You ripper Patty over her marriage at the beginning of the race.

Were they married at the time when he was making these donations?
Was Patty still a single mother raising a family on her own while working a career she made for herself?6/27/2006 02:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Sirocco,

I am all about fiscal restraint when it comes to spending taxpayer money. We have too much we need to accomplish that is just too important to waste our funds on things that don't matter.

However, if Gabby thinks that she would be "unnecessarily" taking taxpayer money by running clean... well, this is just further proof that she just really doesn't *get* what Clean Elections is all about. ANY time you have the opportunity to get special interest money out of your campaign, you MUST jump at it.
This precludes any position on any issue. We can never have a truly representative government until the average Joe and the fat cat lobbyist have equal access to elected officials... and special interest contributions preclude that in a way that is just obscene.
I don't think Gabby has done anythign "wrong"-- she just doesn't understand the urgency of getting this money out of politics. And that disturbs me on a really fundamental level. Unnecessary use of taxpayer money? Hardly. Clean Elections is the only thing that puts the people back in control of their money and their government, by taking it out of the hands of the corporate interests.

As for the fundraising... so Gabby wanted practice taking special interest money before she ran for Congress? Great, looks like she got pretty good at it... but it's coming back to bite her, and I think that once the Wal-Mart and Diebold stuff starts to get traction, she'll be WISHING she had understood and run under Clean Elections!6/27/2006 03:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Roger:

I don't know that I have any 'sage' advice to give, but what I would say is 1) any attack should be responded to, in terms of pointing out what is wrong with it, and 2) still save the really negative stuff for the general. Just my opinion.

As far as why Weiss is going negative when she is claiming the polls show her up, I dunno why she is doing that, although if she makes the point and then continues on to something else, then it's not necessarily all that negative. But it's perfectly fine to rebut it.

As for the general topic of why go negative if the polls show you in front? Maybe ask Jon Kyl about that.6/27/2006 06:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|It was not good that Weiss criticized Giffords in the way she did it--"Gabby, Gabby, Gabby"--to me, that is negative.

HOWEVER, it is a totally fair/reasonable for potential voters to want to know why she did not support Arizona's Clean Elections program BY PARTICIPATING in the program.6/27/2006 07:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|ZD,

I agree with the general consensus it's good to get special interest money out of politics ... and I favor mandatory public funding of elections, state or national. No one gets special interest funds, everyone gets the same amount, may hte best candidate win.

However, that ain't the world we live in today. In the state of affairs as is, I agree with Giffords decision not to take the state funding. If you don't think she would have taken a beating for "wasting taxpayer money" had she done it in 2002 and 2004, then, in my opinion, you are living in a fantasy.

As a practical matter, all the candidates in this election are actively fund-raising, and that includes accepting funds from "special-interest" groups. Whoever wins the primary, Giffords, Weiss, Latas or somone else, will immediately be taking money from just about anyone willing to offer it for the general election - meaning whichever Democrat wins the seat will be equally "beholden", if people like to thank that way.

I don't think any of the three have their souls up for auction so cheaply, however.6/27/2006 07:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|Weiss Accepts Giffords's Offer to Debate Clean Elections


TUCSON, ARIZ. – The campaign of Patty Weiss, Democratic candidate in Congressional District 8, today delivered a letter to her opponent Gabby Giffords's campaign office accepting Giffords's offer to debate on the issue of clean elections and Congressional corruption.

During a candidate forum in Willcox on Saturday afternoon, Giffords responded to a question about the merits of replicating the Arizona Clean Elections system on a federal level by saying that she "absolutely" supports federal clean elections because it will help take money out of politics.

Weiss challenged Giffords on her statement and asked why she chose to take special interest money and not run under the Clean Elections system in her three races for the state legislature. Giffords had the opportunity to qualify for Clean Elections funding in 2000, 2002, and 2004 and opted out on all three occasions.

"This is the most important issue we have talked about today," said Weiss. "Nothing good is going to be accomplished in Congress until we have publicly financed Congressional campaigns. I have stood up for you on this issue since day one of my campaign and I pledge to you, I will run clean elections, I will fight for clean elections because that is the only way we will be able to fight for you."

Giffords then challenged Weiss to a further debate on the topic.

"I'm glad we can do this in the open," said Giffords. "We can, hopefully, have a bigger debate about [clean elections] in the future." ....6/28/2006 01:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|That's quite the cheeky press release!

I can't imagine that when Gabby said "We can, hopefully, have a bigger debate," she actually WANTED to have a debate. But I suppose she painted herself into a corner there.

I can't wait to see what Gabby does with it. It seems like the obvious choice is to accept Patty's acceptance and schedule the debate. The more likely choice is to ignore the press release or dismiss it as a stunt. But that will mean the special interest money thing will keep coming up at every forum from here until September 12, leaving her open to charges of avoiding the issue she said she wanted to debate.6/28/2006 05:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I think Giffords has enough information and reasoning to answer and further debate Weiss' charges. Weiss says it all in the press release response:

Weiss says "I have stood up for you on this issue since day one of my campaign and I pledge to you, I will run clean elections, I will fight for clean elections because that is the only way we will be able to fight for you."

Emphasis added on since day 1 of her CAMPAIGN. Unfortunately, for most of the issues she is attacking Giffords on, it has been since day one of her CAMPAIGN.

I think it will be quite enough and quite persuasive for her to remind voters that she has been working on and supporting the issue. The hypocrisy charge also falls flat in that she didn't take it early in the program when it was under court challenge and later when she faced no opposition.

As to charges that she didn't take the dough because she wanted to build a "warchest" for this very race...where is the evidence? Just how much did she raise in 2002 and 2004. Was it tons and tons more than it would have been if she had organized a campaign for nothing (no opposition) and had taken taxpayer money to spread her name for nothing (no opposition).

I think that is persuasive enough to give her supporters and open voters enough to agree. It also has the potential to backfire on Weiss because her charges, when answered, remind voters that she has been really hard at work on these issues....since the beginning of her CAMPAIGN...and since she TESTED the issue in her poll and found that they might have traction.

Talk about coming lately to an issue?

All that said, AZYOULIKEIT has good analysis. This debate gives Giffords a chance to answer, show her record, and put this to bed...until Patty's next set of charges.

This would be GREAT strategy by the way for Latas...to get her to debate him and raise his name rec. and get his ideas out. But for Patty, she is looking to upstage and she gets no points at all for her name rec. If she doesn't clearly upstage, the debate could really really backfire on her.6/30/2006 10:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|If Gabby's numbers needed a bounce, then this video on clean elections should get her some movement in the polls.

I'm glad she rehearsed her clean elections statement with her advisors.

She needed to be immunized by all of the comments supporting public financing coming from the other campaigns.

If we had publically financed campaigns, then Francine Schacter and Frank Antenori would be viable.

Gabby could list all of the $5 contributions she made to candidates, as it would contrast her other political donations in a more positive light.

But then, again... maybe she never gave $5 contributions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL2hDffM7TM6/26/2006 05:31:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I guess Mike Hellon has totally given up on this "Moderate Republican" thing. I don't know if his polling has shown that he can't compete with Steve Huffman for the moderates, or if he thinks that there are still a few in the anti-immigrant crowd that haven't heard of Randy Graf. His latest round of ads (available on his website) touts his border security plan. Not really a plan, but a set of the regular old talking points that are nearly identical to the ads from say, Jon Kyl. 'Cept for one thing: he advocates denying citizenship to the children of immigrants. Kyl talks about the importance of not breaking up families in his ad, so this could be a difference. Who knows? Both ads are so free of specifics. Of course, denying citizenship to anyone born here violates the Fourteenth Ammendment. The Republicans were so proud of the Fourteenth when they passed it. It seems like many of their candidates have forgotten about it. I'm talking about you, Don Goldwater. Interestingly, the visuals in the television ad consist of a map of the district complete with little lines that point to one or another border community as details of his plan are revealed. Um, does this mean that no communities in CD 7 will get these border cameras and stuff? I mean, the guy shouldn't show a map. Does he realize that the illegal crossers will use this map and cross in the Arizona 7th and the New Mexico 2nd? This is treason. He's just like Geraldo Rivera.|W|P|115136954942675127|W|P|Hellon a Handbasket|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/26/2006 06:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Prudent Man|W|P|It's interesting you mention the 14th amendment. I think it applied to slaves, who prior to emancipation, were under the jurisdiction of the government of the United States. Illegal immigrants wouldn't fall into a category of being under the jurisdiction of the United States government, so it seems that the 14th amendment wouldn't apply.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, as well as after it, there was, and is a lawful path to citizenship. Just showing up doesn't seem a good path, except for Cuban refugees, who by law can show up. Except for that Elian Gonzales kid. He showed up and President Clinton sent him back.6/26/2006 06:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Check the 14th Ammendment again (it's at Wikipedia) you'll see no exception for aliens, illegal or otherwise.

Yeah, just showing up is fine for Cubans, just a coincidence that they are a Republican voting bloc and are relatively wealthy as immigrants go. Oh wait, it's only the Democrats that pander, right?6/26/2006 06:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Prudent Man|W|P|Thanks for the Wikipedia link. The link gives an interpretation (I think the legal term is annotation) but not the actual text of the amendment, which is much shorter than the interpretation (as many things are). How about this:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Sections 2 thru 5 have no bearing on this discussion. Section 1 has the word 'AND' which means both conditions need satisfied. So, it seems that an illegal showing up and having a baby wouldn't satify the condition of section 1.

I never thought of Elian Gonzales and his mother, risking their lives to be free (not economically) as an act of a wealthy immigrant. Point is the law says he should have been able to stay, and President Clinton broke up the family, which as you point out Senator Kyl doesn't think is a good idea. I guess Jim Pederson, since all he does is criticize all of Jon Kyl's votes, would be in favor of breaking up the families.6/26/2006 09:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|On Kyl keeping families together:

This is another case of where his rhetoric doesn't match his actions. There is a couple living near me (a mixed marriage, a Democratic wife and a Republican husband) who don't want any part of Kyl. Some years ago, their son got married to a Philipino woman. The brides' father and mother are also in the United States. Well, they wanted to complete the family and bring her two brothers over as well. So they wrote to Jon Kyl about that, and never got a response. Not even a response saying he couldn't help them, just nothing. So when they heard that ad about 'keeping families together' it just really increased their blood pressure, to the point that I'm sure they will be voting for Jim Pederson even though about all they know about Jim is what they've heard on TV.

For Kyl to just blow off a letter like that from constituents wanting help in bringing their family together, and then claim on TV that he wants to keep families together is particularly odious, but it's vintage Kyl.6/26/2006 09:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Prudent man:

The baby, however, is subject to the jursidiction of the United States as well as the state where it is born (living in the U.S.) AND was born here, so the baby is a citizen. It would be absurd to suggest that the baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the local authorities since the first thing that they have to do is create a birth certificate (and a birth certificate written by, say, Sonoran authorities about a baby born in a hospital in, say, Yuma, would be considered null and void because it would be outside of their jurisdiction.)6/26/2006 10:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Hellon does sound a tough note on the border but he has still not made overtures to the social conservatives. Some Democrats may not think much of this wing of the GOP but if you want to win a Republican primary they sure can help. Steve and Mike will loose most of this block to Randy. In a 5 way race every vote counts.6/27/2006 05:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Prudent Man|W|P|Hi Eli,

Absolutely, the child of your neighbors son is a citizen of the United States. Anybody saying otherwise would be nuts.
I think your neighbors are justified to be upset that the Senators staff did not respond to their letter. On something so important to them, hopefully it didn't drop with one unanswered letter. But, I think that accusing Kyl of being a hypocrite because of this is a stretch. Since several families members of your neighbors are already in the U.S. then the process for coming here must be known. From what I understand it can be very lenghty. Hopefully the family wasn't thinking they could get Kyl to somehow streamline the process and put these folks ahead of other folks. That would be hypocritical, and not Kyl's M.O.6/27/2006 07:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|A pretty good move by Hellon in my opinion. The biggest issue in this race for Republicans will be the border...and that is not just here in Arizona...it is happening in states like Iowa. It also presents more of a problem for Huffman to some extent.

Hellon is betting that Graf is going to loose some supporters after the flap with his manager. They have to go somewhere so why not to him?

Even if Graf remains strong, the tough on the border stance will appeal to others in the primary that don't want Randy's baggage but still want a strong conservative Republican.

I agree with Phx kid that the primary will bring out social conservatives though. Especially with Munsil around on the ticket and the gay marriage amendment. Now the question is whether they feel more comfortable with Graf, Hellon, or Huffman.

Oh...saw a very prominent Graf sign on the side of a car at the LDS church in my neighborhood. A single incident does not mean broad support, I know, but it appears that at least one still feels pretty strongly about Graf. I wonder how social conservatives are breaking? Phxkid?

Roger6/27/2006 09:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Social conservatives will not warm to Huffman’s clear record of support of abortion. Hellon stated that he considers Roe settled law. Neither one of them has lead on the defense of marriage issue or stirs the hearts of the evangelicals.

On the other hand social conservatives are not as dumb as all may think. They want to back someone who is organized and has his/her act together. For Randy this means he better choose a REALLY good campaign manager. So good that he gets back some mojo and people forget about the last person managing his campaign.

Hellon went heavy on the border before Aiken left Randy’s campaign. I have seen Mike speak in public and he does seem to genuinely care about what he is saying regarding the border.6/24/2006 10:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Patty Weiss's campaign released one of their internal polls this week, showing that Weiss has a lead over Gabrielle Giffords, 32% to 22%. The poll also showed that Weiss has a 63% favorability rating among primary voters. This brings up something interesting for political geeks like me. During this phase of the campaign, while most voters aren't yet paying attention, candidates try to build credibility with the political intelligencia by making their nomination or election seem inevitable, "Better get on the bus now before it's too late," or, more sinisterly, "You don't want to be left out after I win this." Both campaigns can make good cases for this. Jeff Latas's campaign is playing by a different set of rules, not counting on high-profile endorsements or mounds of Washington money. Giffords can make the case based on the fact that she has run for office before and understands the political process. She will win this because she knows how to win. Weiss, on the other hand, can make the case based on her popularity in the district. She will win this because she is well known. Weiss's campaign has been putting this out there for a long time, people know who she is, so she is the front runner. Maybe too many people asked about whether or not this is true, so they finally put out some numbers confirming this is the case. Weiss's ten point lead in this poll is being spun as confirmation that Giffords just can't compete for the public's heart with the connection that Weiss has built up over decades on our TV screens. Greg Patterson over at Espresso Pundit is ready to declare the primary over. I don't know if I want Phoenix Republicans declaring Baja Arizona Democratic primaries over. The counterspin is, what, only ten points? What you hear from the Giffords camp is that despite her rather impressive name ID (75%), that isn't translating to people actually wanting to vote for Weiss. This seems to be an opinion shared by some in the press. On the "Political Roundtable" on yesterday's Arizona Illustrated, Ernesto Portillo Jr. said that the numbers looked pretty good for Giffords given how little public campaigning there has been so far and how well known Weiss is. The point, some would say, is that Weiss is still leading. This doesn't seem to be having an effect on the way that national political pros are seeing the race. This is from Friday's Fix column in the Washington Post:
After meeting former newswoman Patty Weiss (D) recently, we are convinced that former state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords (D) is the stronger general-election candidate for Democrats in this southern Arizona open seat. EMILY's List, a group that provides financial support to Democratic women candidates who support abortion rights, apparently agrees, as it endorsed Giffords over Weiss last week.
People that met Weiss early in the race were willing to give her a chance because she demonstrated a suprising grasp of the issues and a passionate defense of liberal values. I'm not sure what bad impression she had made with the Post that caused her to deserve this sort of dis (or even if she deserved the dis), or if despite her knowledge, she paled in comparison to the more politically savvy Giffords. So, the big question is, does this poll solidify Weiss's position as a "front runner," or is it just a demonstration that we have a long race to run here?|W|P|115117451712263269|W|P|Exploding. Plastic. Inevitable.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/24/2006 03:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I think you explained everything quite well Ted. As a Giffords supporter, I am actually happy about the poll, although, I'd of course be happier if Weiss' own poll had Gabby in the lead.

A few things you didn't say. Why would Patty release such a poll to her audience and not more broadly? Well, one answer is that Giffords has been getting all the news with her endorsements and continued success building supporters and donors in the campaign. The June 30th fundraising FEC deadline is approaching and I wonder if the poll was designed to give her supporters some breathing room and to stop the avalanche that has hit her over the last few months. It does give a place for her supporters to hang their hats and it may help her raise some much needed funds before the reporting deadline, which will be viewed by the media as another way to get at support. I wonder how the Weiss campaign is doing with building on those much needed funds? I wonder how Giffords is doing?

The other issue here is that while Patty has 75% name rec. and 63% favorability, she still only has 32% that are actually, in her poll, saying they will vote for her...and with 33ish percent undecided.

She is a strong candidate and it will be a hard race, but I am seeing all signs still pointing towards a lot of real hard support for Giffords in terms of party support, from groups, etc. and less so for Weiss.

Everyone knows this, but primaries are different. They do not attract a lot of independents or average voters. They attract the more liberal wing of the party and party regulars. I think Giffords is doing everything right here and the best the other canpaigns can do here is to pick and choose questionable votes from a record that is strongly progressive, liberal, and favorable to Democrats.


Rog6/24/2006 04:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...to add...the 10% lead figure places a "mark" for support for Weiss. If the race tightens and tightens, won't it be translated into momentum for Giffords by media and by bandwagon jumpers.

I can't think of a better place to be in right now. Strong organization, most endorsements, most money, and an actual record of work for progressive and Democratic issues. If the race tightens...add momentum...and questions by the press about why Weiss' numbers are slipping.

Of course, the race might not tighten and Patty may be the frontrunner for good.6/24/2006 07:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|It comes down to those undecideds.

To me, 32% is a surprisingly small number of undecideds this far away from election day. It means 68% of primary voters are already picking sides two months out.

Gabby would need to pick off a huge chunk of those undecideds to close a 10 point gap.

Can $400,000 of TV buy 3/4ths of the undecideds? It's not impossible, but that's what I call a buckstretcher.6/25/2006 12:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Well...El Campo is the buckstretchers...6/25/2006 12:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|Hey Ted,

Let me know if anyone down your way is interested in participating in the "Arizona Kos" project. I sent you an E-mail about this. We hope to have it up and running soon.6/25/2006 02:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|We have to also remember that all of these results, asyoulikeit, are based on 400 voters only...a very very small group in district as large as this one and with such great diversity.

A poll is a snapshot in time...not a video. It looks at support at the moment the person answered. It means that 400 voters...at this time...at that moment they answered the phone...answered this way.

Lots to do yet for all campaigns...and I am still surprised at Latas being 7%. I think that he is Patty's worst nightmare. No one has talked about the potential of vote splitting on this side of the fence. Two strong anti-Gabby candidates who claim the mantal of the progressives...can only split them.6/25/2006 08:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|This second Weiss poll is even more suspect than the first.

First, I find the release of such ‘extremely’ limited findings very curious. I can only conclude that these represent the poll’s most favorable results relative to Patty, though even these are arguably not too good in the larger context of this primary race.

Second, this second poll is substantially different from the first in that it appears to have polled likely democratic primary voters, and there’s no indication that independents were included in the sample. Meaning this poll is in no way comparable to the first in which likely general election voters (i.e., all registered voters) were polled.

Third, based on the population of active registered democrats in CD 8 (132,894) and a sample size of 400, that results in a confidence level of only 0.95 (95%) and a margin of error of 4.89% for this second poll. Meaning that Patty’s ‘lead’ falls just above this poll’s margin of error (i.e., these results are not very accurate). An accurate poll would have used a confidence level of 0.99 (99%) with a margin of error not great than plus or minus 2.5%, which would have required a sample of 2,501 voters.6/25/2006 09:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Then Gabby must welcome the news all of these polls have.

Her donors must love the numbers too.

And her staff still hasn't been told about her own internal poll numbers.

Bliss is very subjective.6/25/2006 10:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|It will be a hard fought campaign anon...no one is taking Patty Weiss or Jeff Latas for granted. That Patty has more name recognition than Giffords is indeed a hurdle. But we elect smart, effective, public servants over famous people all the time in America. Especially, when the public servant has a real record of voting for the values of Arizonans and the others pop on the scene, without party credentials, out of nowhere, to run.6/25/2006 12:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|Kramajalas, You just keep asking us to point out the bad in your candidate.

Some of us don't agree with you analysis at all. The values you refer are not those of Arizonans at all. Oil refineries, nukes, Wal-Mart, Bashas, no blue collar connection, stay in Iraq-get out of Iraq, political weather vane.

Some of us like conviction, truth, honesty, integrity, LEADERSHIP over questionable record, a façade of inactive board membership, and the questionable endorsements of political hacks.

Your comments only open the floor for us to come out and OUT your candidate. You want us to stress the virtues of our candidate and we do, but you don't listen. I think Latas has done a great job in changing the Democratic party to what it use to be, long before Giffords was a Democrat or Republican. Back in the sixties, Democrats were strong in the working class. This is the direction Latas is going in a modern and progressive way. His activity has done more in one year then you have done. He has done more to straighten out the party than Giffords has done in her short 6 years in the party. What change did she make in making the party stronger? What activities did she do to get voters to the booth? This is not her motivation, hers is self centered and many of us see this.

The DLC is the problem and she takes her marching orders from them. They forgot about them and now the Republicans have used wedge issues to rally them to their side. Latas is very effective in reaching them and they are coming over to him. He comes from them and they recognize this. Giffords is "society" and will never have the working class. The DLC will never get this either because they are the problem, elitists, wealth class that maintains the hold on the political power of this party. They are threatened by Latas and his strong progressive message of returning the power back to the people by taking from those who stole it, the rich. She's part of the problem and not part of the solution. Her votes trend toward this philosophy, but you must not get this. Some never will because they've never been there, in the working class.6/25/2006 12:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|There is a definite disconnect between the Giffords camp and the other candidates regarding middle class values, lower class poverty, and the tension that comes from not knowing whether to eat or buy gasoline for work.

Alex Rodriguez, Jeff Latas, and Patty Weiss all worked hard to go from working class to having stellar careers that extoll their struggles.

Not the same narrative from the CEO Buckstretcher that went to Maricopa County to fight for all and everyone, including special interests.6/25/2006 12:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Boohoo:

"questionable endorsements of political hacks"

...like the unions, environmental groups, teachers groups, police and fire, right?

Man I appreciate outsiders too, but what you are suggesting are candidates that are FAR outside any kind of mainstream that I can imagine...candidates that would be virtually unelectable without the support of these so called "political hacks."

Anon, sometimes we should take a look at what a person has done and not what position they were born in life. The big deal here appears to be that she was born into money for you. That standard tends to push aways a lot of damn good candidates...and some like Gabrielle Giffords who have actually gotten her sleaves dirty fighting for the very interests that some of the other candidates speak so highly of and have done very little concretely for...until this election. There are a host of people who have money that have fought and worked hard on behalf of the interests of the sick, tired, and poor...and yeah, some of them are rich.

There is no one here that can tell me that Giffords hasn't in her time in office done more for these interests than Latas or Weiss have. I'm still waiting for some confirmation that anyone had seen them working for the party or in progressive circles.

I get that some here don't like the DLC and the moderate wing of the Democratic party. The problem is that not all people who are affiliated with the DLC vote the same or do the same things as a Joe Lieberman or a Hillary Clinton.

As I have said, you will find votes you dislike and disagree with. I will find some too as time goes along, but that does not change the fact that she has voted hundreds of times for the very issues some here champion...and that you champion.

You just like other candidates and that is cool. Quit sullying the candidate I am backing...especially when the patterns and generalizations you construct are unfounded and when the candidate you back have no record or service on these issues at all.6/25/2006 12:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|Roger, you don't get it at all.

Gabby is perceived to be a person of privilege, and you guys continue to underscore this fact in red lines.

This suggests that her most avid bloggers don't have a clue about not having money for the next meal, not being able to go to college or campaign for a political seat... or go to law school.

The Gabby bloggers have arguments and excuses that only lawyers could love.6/25/2006 01:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Outlander-

You sure do think you know a lot about how I grew up, eh?6/25/2006 01:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|boohoo, anonymous, and outlander please keep it up. Patty and her kooky ideas would be a gift to the Republican. In a Graf / Weiss match the GOP wins because Patty will be in na-na land with her strange proposals.

Huffman / Giffords is a Democrat win because she is more personable and passionate and will have as much or more money. Huffman also does not excite his own base.

Huffman / Weiss is a toss-up.

Graf / Giffords is too close to call.6/25/2006 01:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.6/25/2006 01:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|Ted, you're a good kid from a good family who grew up in a multicultural world that is full of wonder and splendor.

We've worked and shared victories and defeats in many a past campaign.

I doubt that you speak Spanish with the same fluency but we probably like lots of music.

I won't support some of the conservative Democrats you help, but I hold my breath and vote for them in November. Gabby will get the same, if she survives her advisors and the primary.6/25/2006 03:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|The problem with this class argument is that it eventually falls super duper flat. It especially falls flat when we look at not just what people have but the decisions they make as they live. Giffords I guess could have stayed with a corporate accounting firm or the family business. Instead, she chose public service, chose the right party and has worked for the right values.

Both Patty and Jeff are to be commended for wanting to give back to our community as well. But when I hear these attacks on Giffords and look at their records, I still see Giffords as coming out ahead. Both Weiss and Latas live in far nicer homes and neighborhoods than I do. They are by no means poor either. Would their children be fit for public office? Of course, if they are good people, intelligent, work hard for people, and are dedicated to public service.

Should we just vote for the person that has the least income? Bring out those tax statements.

By the way, hope we meet someday so we can tell each other the stories of our backgrounds. The word "professor" makes me sound pretty elitist to Republicans, but my background sure isn't.6/25/2006 03:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Latas is not exactly hanging out with regular folk. Not only does he live up in an exclusive part of Oro Valley, a few homes on large lots with amazing views but the subdivision is also gated. That is fine; he can live wherever he wants. It’s just hard to take this humble beginnings story seriously when he holds up in some gated community as soon as he gets his piece of the pie. It’s not like the rest of Oro Valley or the Northwest is crime ridden. The gated thing seems just so, so … Republican.6/25/2006 04:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|The rather ferocious vetting of Gabrielle Giffords will be good for her as the campaign goes along. However, I still see it for what it is...desperation and the oldest campaign tactic in the book.

You send attack dogs after the front runner to create some kind of a pattern of evil doing. At some point, if the frontrunner doesn't respond, the labels stick. If they do respond, they give legitimacy to the one doing the attacking. If the attack dogs don't work, then the candidate does the attacking...still hoping for that attack back to gain legitimacy.

What is strange here is that I can see why Latas would do it, but why Patty? She is leading in the polls it appears, has the name recognition, what makes her need to attack?

The answer is pretty clear. Lack of volunteers, lack of endorsements, and a lack of money for the campaign ahead.

And...as I said before, she had really better hope she keeps that lead in the polls throught July and August. If not, her momentum dies and Giffords or Latas' increases.

Question again...does a strong Latas hurt Weiss or Giffords? What would the split look like on this side of the fence given the concern by Huffman supporters about Hellon on the other side of the fence?6/25/2006 06:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|The problem with the class argument is that the working class has less money than the upper class to get their message out and less leisure time to join the clubs and organizations that Gabby is now ringing for cash.

The rich are different from the rest of us, they are expensive, while labor is free, as in free market.6/25/2006 06:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Patty Weiss's campaign space has more than doubled, and operations are ongoing at locations other than the Broadway location.

If you think you are seeing the entire volunteer campaign by looking in at the headquarters, then you are mistaken.

The Patty Weiss Staff has them adding both volunteers and others to the effort on a weekly basis.

Maybe they are desperate. Maybe they are winning.6/25/2006 06:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|Y'know, I'm getting really tired of the convoluted logic coming from the anti-Giffords crowd.

First, you call twist a vote in which she helped Wal-Mart employees obtain health coverage into some anti-union vote???? Excuse me???

Then you accuse Gabrielle of being rich. Her parents live well, but candidly she's lived on her own resources, even though that meant - yes - she had to stretch a buck.

Oh, and that self-righteous effluent about clean elections would be funny if it weren't so self-serving.

Patty Weiss is a good woman who is being goaded into desperate attacks by the Costanzo hard-ballers.

Anyone who knew the old District 13 knew it was a swing district that elected many a Republican - do the names Greg Lunn, Patti Noland and Kathleen Dunbar ring a few bells?

And then, in her first Senate race, she faced a competitive primary challenger who decided not to run, but not before she ratcheted up the pressure and threatened to make it a rough campaign.

So yes, she did not run clean. But she CONSISTENTLY voted to defend Clean Elections against attacks from the far-right Republicans who have gotten fat and prosperous by taking the public money, and then whining about how they'd rather be beholden to their fat-cat supporters than the public at large.

Oh, and while I like and admire Patty Weiss, I'd take her more seriously if she wasn't shaking down colleagues of her husband the pyschiatrist for every dollar she can get. I don't begrudge her pleas for support from them, but don't condemn Giffords just because you're not as successful at playing the same game.6/25/2006 06:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|I'm getting really tired of the Giffords-bashers.

First, you take her votes and distort reality and impugn her motives. She voted to provide AHCCCS coverage (spell the acronym right, please)IN SUPPORT OF WAL-MART EMPLOYEES WHO WERE GETTING SCRWED BY THEIR EMPLOYER. Calling that a pro-Basha vote is absurd. How does it help Basha's if it allows Wal-Mart to continue passing its health care on to the public? It doesn't. It hurts Basha's by allowing Wal-Mart to undercut their labor costs.

But it does provide health care to working families, so it was a devil's bargain, and Giffords voted in favor of families.

Then you try to allege that she opposes clean elections because she raised money the old-fashioned way for competitive races.

Anyone who says the old District 13 wasn't competitive is delusional. Plenty of Rs were elected from that district. Anyone remember Greg Lunn? Patti Noland? Kathleen Dunbar? The list goes on.

And then, when Giffords ran for the Sente, she faced a potential well-funded opponent in the primary who pulled out only because she discovered the district lines had changed, and she no longer lived in the district.

Gabrielle Giffords consistently voted to defend Clean Elections against repeated attacks from Republican hypocrites in Phoenix who take the money and then whine about how they'd rather be beholden to the fat-cat lobbyists than the people who pay their salaries.

And finally, I'd be more sympathetic to Patty Weiss, who is complaining that Giffords is raising money the traditional way for Congress, if Weiss wasn't shaking down all her husband's colleagues in the health-care industry.

That's Patty's right, but her only problem is that people in that industry are giving more to Giffords than they are to Weiss.

Patty is a good woman, but she's succumbing to nasty attacks because she's floundering - her self-funded polls show 73 percent of people know her, but less than half of them will vote for her.

Too bad. If Patty somehow were to win I'd sure support her, but I hope to God that my fellow Dems see the light make Giffords their CD8 nominee.6/25/2006 06:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|So Patty is floundering and Gabby's numbers haven't moved even in her home district. That means Gabby must be winning. That is flawed logic.6/25/2006 06:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|What we have here is a failure to communicate. Gabby's supporters are running from her record and votes faster than she is.

And that makes it look like Team Gabby has some work to get back on message.

Patty Weiss is not pliable when it comes to bending principles for dubious votes. Gabby is transactional and proud to be on the winning edge of the Free Market (where there are winners and losers, but mostly losers).6/25/2006 07:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|What is a Costanzo hardballer? That is a curiosity coming from these passionate, vocal parsers for Gabby. Few if any of the readers here understand this insight.6/25/2006 07:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|Excuse me, Roger. The frontrunner happens to be Patty Weiss.

YOU send out attack dogs on the Democrats, sounding like an inside analyst, when you're either working for Gabby or supporting her as an Independent.

The Democratic Party is in real trouble when they start taking advice from pretend Democrats like kralmajales.6/25/2006 08:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|Sonoran Sam:

Gabby voted for families by voting against the other Democrats in that committee?

How did all of those Democrats end up on the wrong side of the SB1065 bill, while the reasonable pro-family vote happened to be Gabby and the Republicans?

Why did Walmart oppose this bill?

What am I missing? Please clarify.6/25/2006 08:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|If I may add. Sen. Carolyn Allen voted against SB 1065 (the 2004 bill in question), before the same committee (Senate Commerce Committee), and she was a cosponsor.

And gee, did anyone look at SB 1166, covering the subject as well as others.

SB 1166 was approved, with Giffords voting yes, and received approval from the Arizona House and signed into law.6/25/2006 10:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|SAOL,

Not sure if people listen to me here or not. I have been clear about who I support and where I am coming from. That is it. Take my thoughts, ideas, and advice for what they are.

I will say this though...if you think that it has been me calling out attack dogs on Weiss or Latas, just remember what you all started with your sleazy inferences and distortions of Giffords record. It doesn't fall too far from the other candidates I am sure.

Anyone who has followed my comments here knows one thing...that is that I have defended the person I am supporting from these attacks and now that they are getting out of hand, I am raising some questions that no one here has dared to ask against the "frontrunner"...a simple one...where is her record on these so called progressive issues if she is holier than Giffords in this respect?-6/25/2006 11:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|Patty has the same clean slate that Mo Udall had on his first run.

Jeff Latas also is without the dicotomies that define Gabby's image.

One thing is certain. Gabby's record is an issue and it has liabilities that have yet to be explored.

She has picked these fights with the same grace that has fueled one controversy after another.

Lots of people who once supported Gabby are actively correcting their mistake.

Alas, I am one of them also. I apologize for ever giving her credibility or support and I beg forgiveness.6/25/2006 11:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I am really beginning to wonder if the attacks now are indeed orchestrated by the Weiss and Latas camps and not just us bloggers. Patty went after Gabby on Clean elections in Wilcox and she has done so on the Daily Kos...along with her campaign manager. The stuff on the committee vote also appeared pretty conveniently staged throughout progressive circles.

But all is fair in love and politics I guess.

On the Clean elections charge, and someone will correct me, Gabby has supported the program and helped fight for it when the Republicans have tried to take it down in the legislature. As to her not taking them or running clean...charges that Weiss is trumpeting. She faced a pretty competitive race in her first run and did not accept Clean monies. In her latter runs she did not run clean mainly because she faced minimal opposition at best. No need to waste the public's money and take the election dough when you are well liked and going to win anyway.

I think she would have been charged with pilfering public dough to boost her own name rec. if she had taken it...especially by this crowd. Kind of like Steve Leal was busted on it and decided not to run clean this last time in the city elections.

Oh...and yeah...I'm getting it stuck to me as an independent who is fighting for Gabby. Was called a pretend Democrat on one blog. I should tell you that, oh god, I was a Republican once until I saw the light about what the party was all about...many years ago. I am against the Iraq war, support gay marriage, support civil and human rights and liberties and am amazed that we can spend Billions on wars and corporations but a little money for student loans or public welfare is a waste of public dollars. I volunteered for Karin Uhlich and now for Gabby Giffords in my short time here in Tucson (5 years). I am a professor, love art, music, literature and well yeah politics. Finally, since someone tried to say we Gabby supporters are "richies". My mom is a secretary, my dad was a pipefitter, neither finished college, I was raised in industrial WV, and took more student loans than I can count to get through college. I had a lot of help and I do everything I can to help my students in the same way some helped me.

I ain't perfect...but I hope I will be welcome as I vote Democrat, work for candidates I believe in, and even consider joining this rather sometimes rabid party that appears to like to eat its own.6/26/2006 12:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|In re: to the request for information.


This is the link to the participating candidates in the last election. Note, none of the state Senate candidates for LD 28 were listed, as well as David Bradley, who ran for the House (D), in the district).


This is the link for the 2002 election, for which Giffords opponent, Libertarian Kimberly Swanson was a "Clean" candidate, going against the party doctrine.


This is the list of the 2000 candidates, especially in lieu of the court case.

Here is the Arizona Daily Star article on the court case with particulars, for your review.

State justices uphold vote to limit campaign money -
A blow for business interests
The Arizona Daily Star
June 17, 2000
Author: Howard Fischer, CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
Estimated printed pages: 3

Arizona's *elections* this year will proceed with new laws that limit the influence of cash.

In a unanimous ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court yesterday upheld the legality of the *Clean* *Elections* Act, approved by voters nearly two years ago.

The measure sets up a voluntary system of public financing of *elections* and limits the money that can be given to those who choose to rely on private contributions.

Three of the five justices said two provisions of the act are unconstitutional. They concluded, however, that these illegal sections can be severed from the rest of the law without disturbing voters' underlying desire to change how campaigns are financed.

The decision is a major defeat for business interests, led by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, which are major contributors to legislative and gubernatorial races. Chamber lawyers had argued that the act, complete with a special tax on lobbyists, is illegal.

Yesterday's ruling, however, may not be the last word. A separate lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court here, charges that the *Clean* *Elections* Act violates the free-speech rights of those forced to contribute.

That case, however, will not be argued until October - far too late for even an adverse ruling to affect this year's *election*.

In the interim, the new funding plan could have a profound impact.

As of yesterday, three candidates for the Arizona Corporation Commission, four for the state Senate and 15 for the House of Representatives had applied for public financing. The new ruling could sway others to join. The deadline for applying is Aug. 24.

And all others will find they can't take as much from contributors as they have in the past.

The 1998 initiative sets up an optional public-financing system for candidates for statewide offices and the Legislature. To qualify, candidates must get a set number of $5 contributions, take no other funds once the campaign starts and limit the use of their own money.

For example, a candidate for governor must get at least 4,000 $5 contributions. That qualifies that person for $380,000 for a primary battle - if there is one - and $540,000 for the general *election*.

There are different limits for other state offices. Legislative candidates who get 200 $5 contributions within their district can get $10,000 for a primary and $15,000 for a general-*election* race.

The plan is financed by voluntary, tax-deductible donations, lobbyist registration fees and a surcharge on criminal fines and traffic tickets.

Candidates who choose not to accept public funding are limited in how much they can take from any one person or political action committee.

The legal attack by VotePAC, the political arm of the Chamber of Commerce, centered around the new role of the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments.

The constitutional job of that group is to screen applicants for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The law expanded its duties to include nominating members of the *Clean* *Elections* Commission - something the majority of the justices found unconstitutional.

But Justice Frederick Martone, writing the majority ruling, said the law still can work without the appellate commission. The only difference, he said, is that the elected state officials who under the law had to choose their appointments from a list from the appellate commission now will be free to choose whomever they please.

Justice Stanley Feldman, writing the dissent, said he found nothing wrong with expanding the powers of the appellate court commission.

The court unanimously concluded that it is unconstitutional to have its own chief justice appointing a member of the *Clean* *Elections* Commission, but said that provision, too, can be severed from the rest of the law.

Other legal arguments advanced by VotePAC were dismissed.

Farrell Quinlan, spokesman for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, said his organization challenged only those provisions of the law that could be resolved quickly. He said the federal lawsuit, in which the chamber's executive director also is involved, may lead to a different conclusion.

That lawsuit contends it is illegal coercion to charge lobbyists for for-profit groups $100 to do business at the Capitol while non-profit organizations need not pay any fee.

Rep. Steve May, R-Phoenix, also is a plaintiff, challenging the surcharge on fines.

May got a parking ticket in Tempe, which included an additional $2.70 for public financing. The lawmaker said it violates his First Amendment rights to be forced to subsidize the political campaign of another whose view he may find offensive - or who even may be running against him.

The outcome of that case could end up setting nationwide precedent.

In prior rulings the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that there is a constitutional right to contribute to political campaigns. But the justices also have upheld some limits on how much people can give to the campaigns of others.


Several Southern Arizona candidates for office already have said they will accept public financing and eschew donations from individuals and special interests.

The list includes Democrat Hugh Smith in legislative District 7, Republican Kerry Clawson in District 9, Democrat Carmine Cardamone in District 11, Democrat Ted Downing in District 13 and Democrat Dimitri Downing in District 14.

In addition, state Rep. Herschella Horton, D-Tucson, is pursuing public funds in her bid for the Arizona Corporation Commission.

This list is far from final, with candidates having until Aug. 24 to apply and Aug. 31 to submit the requisite number of $5 contributions to qualify.
Section: NEWS
Page: A1
Dateline: PHOENIX
Copyright 2000 The Arizona Daily Star
Record Number: 000617.17nuclean

What follows are stories pertaining to the Clean Elections Program and Giffords:

Paper: The Arizona Daily Star
Title: District 28 Senate: Gabrielle Giffords
Date: October 21, 2002

The legislative District 28 Senate race features two candidates - Democrat Gabrielle Giffords faces Libertarian Kimberly Swanson. No Republican appears on the ballot for this race. Giffords, who has served a term in the Arizona House, is by far the most qualified candidate and the more moderate. Swanson is a property manager and an artist. She is a UA graduate in speech communication and also has a law degree from the UA but does not practice. Giffords considers herself a full-time legislator. She formerly was president of El Campo Tire and Auto Service. She is a graduate of Scripps College and has a master's degree in planning from Cornell University. She also was a Fulbright scholar in Mexico. Giffords represented the old District 13, which with redistricting was transformed into District 28.

Giffords opposes school vouchers and argues that some charter schools are a failure. Swanson contends vouchers should be used and would value them at $6,000 per student. She toes the Libertarian line that the key to the state's budget shortfall is to severely curtail spending. Giffords argues, much more wisely, that tax credits and exemptions are problematic and should be reconsidered.

Giffords favors Proposition 202 on Indian gaming, which is sponsored by 17 tribes. Swanson opposes all three gaming propositions, arguing the tribes are sovereign and federal and state governments have no business meddling in Indian affairs.

Swanson, despite being a Libertarian, is a Clean Elections candidate. Giffords, who says she supports public campaign financing, is not. Giffords has demonstrated a strong commitment to public service and has served her district and Southern Arizona well in the Legislature. The Star endorses her for Senate in District 28.

Copyright 2002 The Arizona Daily Star


Clean Elections warts
Arizona Daily Star, The (Tucson, AZ)
November 10, 2002
Estimated printed pages: 2

For all its good points, the state's campaign funding system was found in the election of 2002 to have some major warts. Namely, third-party candidates received more public money, and in turn more public exposure, than their political ideas deserved. Moreover, the money gave some no-hope candidates funds with which to conduct vicious, strange, ineffective or false attacks on the viable, major-party candidates.

For example, in the governor's race, Independent Richard Mahoney used public financing to redefine the meaning of attack politics. First, he attacked Janet Napolitano for being soft on child molesting. Not true. Then he took off after Matt Salmon in the weirdest campaign tactic so far. Because Salmon is Mormon, according to Mahoney logic, he could not be trusted to end polygamous practices in the once-Mormon areas along the border between Utah and Northern Arizona. For those outrageous charges, and for having never been in the running, Mahoney drew more than $1 million in public money.

A Libertarian candidate who qualified for Clean Elections funds illustrated another egregious failure of public campaign financing. Libertarian Kimberly Swanson ran against Democrat Gabrielle Giffords for state Senate. You, the Arizona taxpayer, paid for her signs and her bikini-over-A-Mountain campaign buttons - to the tune of almost $38,000. Why? So she could push her campaign to legalize marijuana.

Giffords ran without the aid of Clean Elections money in her slam-dunk win. Even so, a serious glitch in the Clean Elections rules ensured that Swanson always would have $11,000 more than Giffords. Neither Swanson nor Mahoney were viable candidates. Yet between them, they received more than $1 million in public funds.

Clearly, there is some Clean Elections tightening that has to take place. First of all, increasing the number of $5 donations that a candidate must collect should be considered. That probably won't eliminate the marginal candidates, but it couldn't hurt. Another change to consider is to toughen sanctions for non-participating candidates who file late reports. Late finance reports delay funding for their "clean" opponents. This newspaper has always supported the idea of public financing as a way to diversify the elected officials at the state capital and as a way to ensure that special interests are minimized. Indeed, we believe Clean Elections funding provided voters better choices in several races by giving an opportunity to excellent candidates who otherwise would not have been on the ballot. We understand that a one-size fits all funding formula automatically lets in the marginal candidates. But we don't have to like the idea that some marginal candidates have learned to exploit the public financing system - at great cost and to no good end.

Page: B12
Copyright 2002, 2005 The Arizona Daily Star
Record Number: MERLIN_1105498

Tucson Citizen (AZ)
September 5, 2000
Author: Tom CollinsTucson Citizen
Estimated printed pages: 5

Dist. 13 candidates all newcomers to politics, all back tax hike for education

Citizen Phoenix Bureau

If you think professional politicians corrupt democracy, you'll applaud the Democratic primary race for two District 13 House seats. None of the four candidates has held elected office. And none sees that as a disadvantage. Instead, the candidates are touting their ability to bring fresh ideas to the Legislature through their experiences in the private sector. The contest features a child psychologist, a real estate broker, an anthropology professor and a land planner-turned-tire company-owner-turned-commercial-property manager.

For instance, jokes aside about the Legislature being fertile ground for a child psychologist, Howard Shore says his clinical skills would serve voters two ways. He says child psychologists are consensus builders by necessity and that they are used to advocating the party with the least power. In the Legislature, that would be Pima County in its perennial struggles with Maricopa County, Shore says. The candidates share similar views on public schools: They need to get better. All four back Proposition 301, which would boost the state sales tax by 0.6 cent on the dollar to raise $450 million a year for the state's education system. And all the candidates want improved access to health care. But they also disagree on some major issues, including how to manage the state's growth.

The four are vying to replace Democrat Andy Nichols and Republican Kathleen Dunbar. Both are running for the state Senate. The two candidates with the most votes in the Sept. 12 primary will face Republicans Jonathan Paton and Carol Somers in the Nov. 7 general election.

District 13 runs roughly from Broadway on the south to the Catalina foothills on the north, and from the University of Arizona on the west to the Coronado National Forest. Here's a look at where the candidates stand on the issues.

Colette Barajas: Better education is the key to maintaining the state's robust economy, said Barajas, a real estate broker and co-owner of Centra Realty. But more money isn't the only answer, she said. Increased parental involvement also is crucial, as is better control of how the money flowing to schools is spent. "We have not had good planning. We really need to look at the structure of how the money is spent," she said. On growth, Barajas said she wants a compromise between the Growing Smarter legislation advocated by the Legislature and Gov. Jane Hull, and Proposition 202, the Citizens Growth Management Initiative backed by the Sierra Club.

Barajas, an activist in Tucson's gay and lesbian community, said she is wary of being pegged as a single-issue candidate but wants the Legislature to improve its record on civil rights for gays and lesbians. "They spoon-feed us crumbs and they want us to be satisfied," she said.

Ted Downing: The biggest issue facing Arizona is to improve its government, says Downing, a University of Arizona anthropology professor. Downing was the first southern Arizona candidate to receive money under the state's Clean Elections campaign financing system. And public campaign finance is just one of many steps needed to make the Legislature more responsive to voters, he said. Efforts to reform state government should also include an audit of state revenue to see who is paying taxes on what, Downing said. Ultimately, Tucson and the state need to position themselves for the new economy, said Downing, who has served as a consultant for the Mexican government, the World Bank and other organizations. "This town has a chance of not making it in the global economy," Downing said. Downing also wants to ensure that the powerless receive the benefits of economic growth. "Rather than focusing on how we're growing, I want to focus on increasing the size of the pie," Downing said. Downing is an unabashed supporter of Proposition 202, which would require cities to set growth boundaries. He says it would keep land-use planning under local control.

Gabrielle Giffords: The former owner of El Campo Tires said she would bring much-needed business skills to the Legislature. And because of her private sector experience, Giffords said she understands how important improving public education is to the state's economy. Giffords, who returned to Tucson several years ago to take over the family tire business, then sold it last year, said many company job applicants lacked rudimentary math and reading skills. The need for an educated work force drew her into the District 13 race, she said. Higher wages for teachers and smaller classes, especially from kindergarten through third grade, are her top priorities. In large classes, "It's crowd control much more than it is teaching," said Giffords, who manages a commercial property business.

Giffords, who was trained as a land planner, says Proposition 202 "goes too far,'' but she's not entirely pleased with Proposition 100, the Growing Smarter initiative sent to the ballot by lawmakers. She sees it as placing a cap on the amount of state land that can be preserved. Giffords is the only District 13 Democratic candidate not running under Clean Elections. She said she wanted to participate, but that unresolved court action made it unfeasible. . . .6/26/2006 03:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Tucsonmark (that was a really long post to read through).

The contest features a child psychologist,

I don't know. After accessing the lobbyist report out yesterday (link here) one thing that I noticed is that quite a few of our legislators have been wined and dined by representatives of a group calling itself the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. That group is actually a front for the Church of Scientology, which believes (stemming from their religious dogma) that mental health practitioners are all united in some plot to enslave people (I went into it much deeper on my blog) but suffice to say that with these wackos apparently getting a serious ear from our legislators (who may not know who they are), an actual mental health professional (of any description) might be a good addition to the legislature.6/26/2006 06:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Good morning Everyone! Have an incredible day!

Rog6/26/2006 09:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|My apologies to you all for the long post. I am still new to blogging and unfamiliar about links, plus some of these items don't have those. It is to put this information out there for everyone to consume.6/26/2006 12:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.6/26/2006 12:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|To summarize on the long post:

Gabby could have run on three out of her three elections as a Clean Elections candidate and she chose not to.

She was threatened by a libertarian, so she refused public money, and ran with special interest money instead.

She does not trust the process of Clean Elections, but she supports clean elections.

At Willcox, she absolutely supports clean elections, but she did not absolutely support them in the past, or she would have run as a clean elections candidate.6/26/2006 01:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|boohoo says, “The DLC is the problem.”

Yeah, I can see that. After all, they only produced the only Democratic president in the last 26 years. Those bastards are totally destroying the party.

We’ve been so much more successful and effective with “real” liberals like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. If only we had more East Coast liberal elites running the party....

Oh, but wait. We’re supposed to be the party of the blue collar worker, so I guess we’re against scions of rich and powerful families like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy who come from “society.”

So, never mind. We want more candidates that have picked themselves up by their bootstraps, like Bill Clinton who came from a place called Hope!

Oh, but wait. He’s from the evil DLC. They’re the problem.

Hmm.......6/26/2006 01:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|Typical response.

Clinton, the only thing the DLC can hang their hat on.

DLC has lost so many elections that the Dems left the party by the thousands. The working class was pushed aside for big money, just like Giffords is doing (Wal-Mart/Basha).

The union membership doesn't want Giffords, by the way Kral. Go ask a real blue collar worker.

By the way Kral, why don't you go change your registration anyway?6/26/2006 02:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|I'm so tired of DLC Dems with their talking points that have been focused-grouped to death... they take all the life out of politics!
Gabby came across in Wilcox as just another politician. That's not a good thing or a bad thing... just what happens when you run your campaign straight from the DLC playbook.
At least Latas and Patty seem to really believe what they're saying. They're not just spouting rhetoric that their consultants typed up for them based on the latest polling data. (Case-in-point: Gabby's "absolute" support for Clean Elections...)6/26/2006 04:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|That's a hell of a standard for choosing a candidate, 'zona. The crazy guy who hangs out in front of my office building and preaches the coming of the end of the world seems to really believe what he's saying too. Maybe I should vote for him instead of Jim Pederson for Senate.

I notice you had no answer for my class argument. It's okay to support the richies when they pander to your liberal point of view, I suppose. But anything less than absolute adherence to the orthodoxy renders them dilettantes. Does the same go for the blue collar folks who don't worship at the alter of Springsteen?
Your classism is quite convenient.6/26/2006 05:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|If Gabby had a record helping the underclass at a ratio of 2:1 over the business class, then she would be limosine liberal like Ted Kennedy.

Rich folks helping the poor, like Ted Turner, now Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, are working to mediate the damage that their class has caused the world at large.

They are aware of the problem of poverty, in ways that the Buckstretcher has yet to understand.

Like the difference between access to healthcare and actually having universal healthcare.6/27/2006 07:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|It is not customary to relese your poll numbers to your staff. At least in my experience. Also, the numbers really depend on who is doing the polling and how the questions are worded.6/24/2006 08:43:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Harry Mitchell introduced a group of thirteen current and former elected Republican officials who have endorsed his candidacy. The group included former Senate president and gubernatorial nominee Leo Corbett and Tempe City Councilman Ben Arrendondo. They also included former Attorney General Grant Woods. So, what is J. D. Hayworth's response? "You've got thirteen, I've got one": failed 2002 congressional candidate Craig Columbus. Wow, J. D., I guess you've got Harry trumped there. We've always known J. D. to be such a clever and wily sort of guy; we shouldn't have underestimated him. I guess Mitchell should just fold up and go home, since legions of "Columbus Democrats" are going to bolt to support J. D. An aside here: given the number of Native Americans that are in the district, how advisible was a nominee named "Columbus"? I guess it could have been worse; his name could have been "Craig Custer" or "Craig Carson." Hayworth's campaign also retorted that Woods had at one point been Mitchell's defense attorney, so that endorsement just doesn't count. With as many fingers that J. D. had soaking in Jack Abramoff's Palmolive, he may not want to remind people of the phrase "defense attorney."|W|P|115116569885608393|W|P|J. D. Says Back Atcha Sort Of|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/24/2006 09:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Speaking of legions of “Columbus Democrats”, I don’t think that in the end Woods will deliver that many votes to Harry.

See http://www.sonoranalliance.com/ for what real Republicans think of Grant.6/24/2006 09:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Moderate Republicans in this state, who vote in general elections (that's one of the reasons Napolitano won) are more like Woods that you think.

I checked out your link. The worst you can say about him is that he was "living in sin"? Classy.6/24/2006 10:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Woods is a blowhard. Ask Rick Murphy how much Grant’s support helped in his 2004 race against Franks.6/24/2006 10:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski, help me out here. Didn’t Woods support Salmon in his 2002 race against Napolitano? If I am correct then this supports my theory that Woods will be of no help to Harry. Grant backed the Republican in 2002 who lost despite a registration advantage. I am not seeing that his backing is worth that much.

http://www.kaet.asu.edu/horizon/transcripts/2002/september/sept10_2002.htm6/24/2006 01:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ted is right about the moderates...if they voted more in the primaries, the Republicans would have less Huppenthals to run in the general.6/24/2006 01:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Dad|W|P|Are you saying that Woods was the "kiss of death" for Salmon?

Salmon's campaign did everything possible and then some to lose the race and an endorsement from Woods or Jesus Christ himself wouldnt have save his effort.

And to even mention Columbus support vs. Woods support in the same breath is laughable. Keep 'em coming, high speed6/24/2006 03:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Clearly Woods was not the “kiss of death” for the campaign but Grant was a co-chairman for Salmon. If he could not help put Matt over the top in a race where he already had an advantage in registration then Woods must not control or influence that large of a voting block.

J.D. Hayworth is anything but a stealth candidate. If the moderates are not going to vote for him it would show up by now. The latest poll had J.D. doing quite will against Harry. An early June, 2006 poll by Public Opinion Strategies has Hayworth ahead by 15%.

By the way dad what are your top 5 picks for mistakes made by Salmon in 2002? (anyone else please join in with your list) I barely remember the race. I was traveling a lot and don’t remember seeing much of Matt down in Southern Arizona. Would love to hear your take on it.6/26/2006 12:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|tedski,
I'm going to assume that your paragraph on Native Americans was meant as an incredibly lame joke and that you don't really think that we're that stupid. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

phx kid,
You could be right about Woods but not for the reason you think. He's been out of office so long (since 98?) and there has been so much growth since then, there's no telling how many people remember who he is anyway.

The same could be said about Democrats. If they had run someone in the general to tap into all those moderate Republicans, there would be less Huppenthals running around. But the Democrats still don't run anyone in that district. So do those moderate Republicans really exist in the numbers you say or is it just a convenient excuse for the Dems?6/26/2006 06:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Bored-

At the time, I thought it was really ironic that we were running a guy named Columbus in a district with two Native American reservations.

Thinking that this was a slap at the intelligence of Native Americans is quite a stretch. I know that you've spent a lot of time posting on here to tell me what a jerk I am, but one thing you can't accuse me of is racism against Native Americans.6/27/2006 03:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|I wonder if Craig actually thought throwing his weight behind J.D. would bring over Democrats. Well, at least he'll get exercise twiddling his thumbs at the next Democrats for Hayworth meeting.6/29/2006 04:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I didn't accuse you of racism, tedski. You could have said "how advisable was it to run a Wildcat in that district?" and my point would still have been valid.

It's still a slap at the intelligence of the people in the district for thinking they wouldn't get past superficial characteristics to judge a candidate on their positions on the issues.6/23/2006 07:00:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Following on the heels of the Sierra Club's endorsement, the League of Conservation voters announced their endorsement of Gabrielle Giffords yesterday. Look for some of our loyal posters to twist this into more proof that the League and Giffords are some sort of Republican sell-outs out to destroy American democracy. From the League's press release:
“LCV is proud to endorse Gabrielle Giffords because we see her as an environmental champion in the United States Congress, as she has been back home in Arizona,” said LCV Political Director Tony Massaro. “She knows well that the key to reinvigorating America’s economy is through a sustained effort to develop and market new and renewable forms of energy. She knows it’s American ingenuity and the American work ethic that will solve our energy challenges.”
Another interesting set of endorsements will be announced today. Harry Mitchell will be having a press conference today at 2:00 at his headquarters (115 E Baseline) to announce that "several prominent Republicans" are endorsing his candidacy. Who? What makes this fun is that we don't know yet. UPDATE: I recieved a release from Mitchell's campaign this morning saying that one of the endorsers will be former Attorney General Grant Woods. I had also heard about other names. I can't say who they are, but at least one really suprised me and they aren't all in the RINO camp.|W|P|115107283106145033|W|P|Endorsements|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/23/2006 08:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Harry's press conference is down the street from where I work, so I'm going. I'll let y'all know as soon as I get back.6/23/2006 09:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I got the day off mysteriously so I will be attending too.

See you there Jane!6/23/2006 09:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|My guesses:
Grady Gammage
Grant Woods
John Greene6/23/2006 09:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Are you talking about Grady Sr, or Grady Jr? As one reader helpfully told me a while back, Grady Jr is a Democrat.6/23/2006 10:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This will be like Zel Miller endorsing Jon Kyl. Kind of news but not really.6/23/2006 10:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|The only news I think will be after June 30th the filing deadline6/23/2006 10:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|On the Giffords endorsement by League of Conservation Voters...again impressive. Both the Sierra Club and the League thinks she is the strongest candidate to carry their environmental message to our nation.

Also the race goes national again and is rated #3 on the list, see what the "daily fix" says about Giffords over Weiss.

The link:


The analysis:

3. Arizona's 8th District: After meeting former newswoman Patty Weiss (D) recently, we are convinced that former state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords (D) is the stronger general-election candidate for Democrats in this southern Arizona open seat. EMILY's List, a group that provides financial support to Democratic women candidates who support abortion rights, apparently agrees, as it endorsed Giffords over Weiss last week. The Republican primary seems likely to come down to conservative former state Rep. Randy Graf and moderate state Rep. Steve Huffman. If Huffman wins the Sept. 12 primary, Republicans' chances of holding this seat increase dramatically. ( Previous ranking: #3)

Best to all,

Rog6/23/2006 10:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I think also Neil whatshisname...the mayor between Harry and Hallman.6/23/2006 10:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|The press conference is at 2? I think I can make that one...should be interesting.

Anybody want to bet that Hayworth tries to find "several prominent Democrats" to endorse him?

The only place he might find any that will even talk to him is in the local criminal defense bar.

And even they will need a large retainer first.6/23/2006 11:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|The LCV and Sierra Club endorsements seem odd given Giffords' statement on nuclear energy. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

The Emily's list one makes sense given her contributions:

06/05/2001 1000.00 21990227712

04/23/2002 1000.00 22990975165
01/09/2004 250.00 24990578443
01/13/2006 500.00 26980118315

This is an insider versus outsider game. A Dean versus Kerry matchup.

I predict the results will be the same. Giffords will win the primary and lose the general because it will be both insiders in the general and the Republican insider will be able to get more votes. She can't claim an experience advantage over him and he will shine a light of any skeletons in her closet.6/23/2006 11:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|A pro-choice woman gave to EMILY's list? Then EMILY's list supported her? I'm shocked, absolutely shocked.

Um...in that Dean v Kerry race, who won that?

What skeletons are you refering to? If you have anything to say, please say it. You haven't been too shy before.6/23/2006 11:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|Bush won.6/23/2006 11:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Well, yeah, but I was talking about the primary.6/23/2006 11:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Fedup,

The point I have been trying to make is that you do not have to pure on every freaking issue to earn the support of someone. Sometimes it just means that you agree on most things and that they find you more capable.

As to the Giffords versus the Republican in the fall. It won't be just experience that will make her win. It will be that Democrats and most independents will rally around her because they see her as reasonable, effective, and most of all they want change in Washington. The Republicans have worn out any welcome they could have had and cannot run from the dismal record, economy, scandals, the war, and simple disregard for average people. All while they had control over the entire Government. People want change and they will vote for Giffords (or Latas or Weiss) to get it.

What I have been saying is that I want an experienced legislator in there from the Democratic side. I don't want an outsider and I don't want someone who hasn't fought off this Republican crowd in the past. Giffords, like every vote or not, has done this. The others have not.6/23/2006 01:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|Who's twisting your arm, vote for her.

My vote goes for the more experienced in life who best represent me and my issues, this isn't GG, it's Latas.6/23/2006 02:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|tedski,
Junior. Don't know what his party affiliation is. Have heard he is "RINO," as they say.

Guiliano. Thought about putting him in (especially since he fits into the "G" theme) but I thought he left the state to run GLAAD.6/23/2006 05:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|At Harry Mitchell's press conference today, when Grant Woods was asked if he supported any other Democrats, he did say that he would support Gabby Giffords against Randy Graf.

No word on what he would do if/when a different Republican wins the CD8 nomination.6/23/2006 06:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Bored, I got the press release and it does mention Mayor Neil's endorsement...Not a big surprise there. :)6/23/2006 10:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Arizona Congress Watch is reporting that the Hayworth campaign issued a disclaimer claiming that the endorsement is because Woods represented Mitchell in a court case.

My first reaction to that is it gives an insight into the kind of campaign the Hayworth team plans to run. To wit:

They either knew in advance of this and had the story ready to roll (indicating they may have a mole somewhere) or they had the story on the court case already in their files (likely to make a negative ad about later) and decided to use it today to blunt the endorsement. Either way, it indicates that the tenor the Hayworth campaign as we move towards the election is going to be dirty, dirty, dirty.

Not that I would expect it to be otherwise, of course.6/22/2006 04:19:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Espresso Pundit tried to play "gotcha" with Gabrielle Giffords and accused her of "waving the bloody shirt." One thing he took issue with was her supposed "claim" to be the youngest legislator. Well, the trouble was, she never made that claim. Espresso Pundit pulls the offending quote from an article quoted on Gabrielle Giffords's website. The original article was in the local Spanish language tabloid La Voz, and the translation was posted on Giffords's campaign website:
Giffords, a 36-year-old third-generation Tucson resident, says she has all the experience the position requires. She’s young, but has an impressive political resume. She represented the 28th District in the State Senate, and the 13th District in the House of Representatives. Giffords was the youngest legislator in Arizona history.
She was, in fact, the youngest woman to ever be elected to the State Senate, but not our youngest legislator. If one were to check the Spanish, the term used is "legisladora," so there isn't a question of more precise terminology being lost in translation. The reporter made a mistake. If the Giffords campaign had irresponsibly placed this up on their website without correcting the reporter's mistake, then I could see Espresso Pundit's point. But, there, at the end of the piece, as quoted on the Giffords web site, is the following:
[Clarification: Gabrielle Giffords is the youngest woman ever to have been elected to the Arizona State Senate. She was not the “youngest legislator in Arizona history.”]
Given that the clarification was there, this is a cheap shot, even by the standards that blogs such as mine have established. The other thing that Espresso Pundit accused Giffords of was "waving the bloody shirt." I have to be a bit sensitive to such an accusation, given that 19th century bloody shirt waving is what provided the title for this blog. Espresso Pundit believes that Giffords's claims that Republicans aren't for funding childhood immunizations are tantamount to the "bloody shirt" of old. A bit of a history lesson is in order here. "Waving the bloody shirt" was first used as a rhetorical technique by supporters of the third Caliph, Uthman round about 656. After Uthman was assassinated, his supporters used a shirt drenched in blood, allegedly Uthman's, to rally the public to their cause. We get the term in American history from Massachusetts Representative Benjamin Butler, who brought the shirt from a Republican politician who had been beaten to death by the Ku Klux Klan to the floor of the House. The term came to refer to the Republican tactic of connecting Democratic candidates to succession, Copperhead appeasement, mob violence in the South, or lack of support for Reconstruction. So, why did such charges stick? Well, for the simple reason that the Democratic party in the late 1860's and 1870's was connected to successionists, Copperheads, the Klan and opposed reconstruction. As long as such charges were plausible, "bloody shirt" arguments worked. Here is Espresso Pundit's rebuttal to what Giffords said:
That's right, the Republican platform calls for leaving children without vaccinations or medical attention. Next time someone describes Gabby as "moderate" or non-partisan, remember that she claims Republicans always want to cut funding for low-income families.
Giffords does not, nor does any other Democrat, claim that Speaker Jim Weiers or any of his collegues is walking into some clinic and knocking syringes out of the hands of nurses as they are about to immunize a low income child. What Giffords says is that the Republicans, in general, have a record of not supporting state funding for immunizations for the poor, or much other health care for the poor. Except for some notable exceptions, the ones always condemned by RINOs by the Republican's activist wing, this seems to be the case. Heck, many Republican office holders and activists condemn programs for low-income familes and pooh pooh Democratic arguments for such things. Silly of us to assume this means that Republicans don't support them. If Republicans don't want to be accused of not supporting programs for the poor, a good solution is to vote for funding such programs. I know, this is pretty radical of me to say this. I need to learn to be more measured.|W|P|115101994846235339|W|P|And One More Response to My Friend at Espresso Pundit|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/22/2006 06:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|What this makes the point about, is that Republicans can't actually win when they point out what is true, so they try to win by the use of distortions, intentional misstatements, or on occasion outright lies.

Of course on the immunizations for the poor, it isn't that Republicans are against it, doncha know, they just want to wait until some private company figures out a way to profitably provide immunizations for kids whose parents can't actually pay for them. You know, the 'free market' has a solution for everything. (like their overall solutions for health care which have now, according to the most recent W.H.O. statistics, put us so far down in the rankings for infant mortality and life expectancy that we now are even behind Cuba in both categories-- if that isn't a source of national embarrassment, then I don't know what is.)6/22/2006 06:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|The Democrats don’t seem to care much about immunizations or schools or any other social welfare spending when they vote for pork projects like Rio Nuevo.

Manny Alvarez, Phil Lopes, Olivia Cajero Bedford, Ted Downing, David Bradley, Linda Lopez, and Tom Prezelski all voted yesterday to siphon of sales tax revenue to pour into the black hole of spending know as Downtown Tucson. $600,000,000 will buy a lot of vaccinations or support for the classroom but they just voted to waste it on a place no one want to go. I guess we all have our priorities.

http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/134765.php6/22/2006 07:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger espressopundit|W|P|I don't think the "correction" was there when I wrote the piece.6/22/2006 07:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger espressopundit|W|P|Here's what Gabby said.

"We know that Republicans always want to cut funding for low-income families. A fifth of the residents of Arizona live in low-income situations and so state health care programs should not be cut; it would be very serious to leave children without vaccinations or medical attention,”

Your interpretation of what she said would be reasonable if she had said it, but it's not what she said.6/22/2006 09:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger union guy|W|P|Greg (Espresso Pundit),

If Republicans at the leg had not just voted to build a "YUMA WELCOME CENTER" to help one of their Senate candidates and allowed their leadership to block universal health care, maybe you could defend them.

As it stands, the Republicans at the leg stand for pork for re-election, but not supporting health care for low income Arizonans.6/23/2006 07:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Phx kid,

A number of your Republican leglslators puffed the Rio Nuevo extension as well. One of the biggest leaders was Steve Huffman.

You can't decry government as a Republican if your party is thrilled when the government benefits go to business...and they have since you all took power.

Frankly, I applaud them all on this. This is just the type of government/business partnership that can lead to some progress downtown. I also have no problem if the tax dollars I pay here, get to stay here in some fashion instead of heading to phx.

-Rog-6/23/2006 08:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Roger, very good point. As I have said before the Republican Party is not one entity but the many different people with separate agendas. Apparently not everyone agrees with Huffman’s sweetheart deal for a few select businesses.

See http://www.sonoranalliance.com/

I think getting more money for Southern Arizona is a great idea. It would just be nice if that money went to something that makes sense. Rio Nuevo does not make sense. If you have to pay business to go someplace it’s a hint that the location is not economically viable. You end up throwing good money after bad.

Have you seen the AIMS math scores at Cholla High School? Why not spend the money on education. Democrats are always crying that the schools and heath care are under funded. So what do they do, vote for an insider deal for a few well-connected companies to cajole people to go someplace they are not interested in visiting.

They did a good job securing $600,000,000 for Tucson. They just ended up wasting it on nothing.6/23/2006 08:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Thanks for the thoughtful response Phx. However, I don't think it is money poorly spent. The viability of downtowns is crucial to both downtowns and the inner city rings of most cities. I go down there a lot and live in the inner ring. Housing has become old and depleted student rentals...we need more people living in the inner city area. If for no other reason than that commutes are long and expensive as gas rises.

As for the success of downtown...it is slow but I go there a lot and see progress. There are a host of condo projects and revitalizations of buildings...private sector investment with some public support. There has been a growth of viable and fun restaurants and entertainment. I implore readers to not only visit Hotel Congress, but also the Monkeybox on Stone for food drinks and great local music, Milano's by the fox, which is now open for dinner Thurs. - Sat. (best Italian in town...no kidding...and affordable), Cushing Street Bar and Grill, Casa Vicente for tapas, paella, and live music, these are just a few.

And damn it, it just isn't dangerous...I am not an imposing figure and I have never been beaten, robbed or exploited as I visit downtown late at night(smile).6/23/2006 09:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Roger you make a great case for visiting downtown. One of my favorites is El Charro. I am sure it is as safe as anywhere.

You did not make a case for spending the $600,000,000. There is already a lot of new housing going up within a few minutes of downtown. Drive along Star Pass between I-10 and Mission and then go south on Mission. Not everyone works downtown so housing should be spread out in different areas anyway.

Another question not answered is why downtown. Why not the East side? Why not a sports stadium in Corona de Tucson? Why not a new park near Roger and Oracle?

There is nothing crucial about downtown. It is a myth that the downtown area matters. It is no more important that other important spending needs. It should have been balance against other “investments.” If it had been there would have been a lot of other options that could have improved education, transportation, housing, or any number of other things.6/23/2006 10:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Not a myth about downtowns at all Phx. Look at city after city where economic developers, those who know what they are doing, have great concerns about the health of downtowns and economic development. Check out the public/private investment in Atlanta in order to attract people to live and work downtown.

The benefits are these. As people move further out into the suburbs away from their jobs, they abandon the neighborhoods within. The tax base follows them (I know that this does not hold true for Eastside Tucson). Those areas become blighted, crime ridden, and socially can become disasters. There is only so much room to build economically viable businesses on the city limits and most east-siders would not want a skyscraper in their backyards...which is why traditionally such offices go into downtown areas. In order for increased tax base and economic development for the city of tucson, we need to attract business and people back downtown.

Don't the eastsider work there (the U. or downtown) anyway? Wouldn't we like more there for people to commute to?

Roger6/23/2006 03:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|“Check out public/private investment” The public part means they had to pay business to got downtown. If you pay a business enough it will do most anything. It does not mean that it is economically viable or worthy of limited tax dollars. Atlanta is a little larger than Tucson and may not make the best comparison.

Maybe people move out to the suburbs because that is where they want to live. Have you driven through Gladden Farms in Marana? It is quite nice. Sidewalk, parks, trees. Young families can’t get enough of these places. If dad works at the local middle school it is only a few minutes drive. Mom may have a small business run out of home. They couldn’t find downtown if you drew them a map. And they don’t care either.

Sure the tax base follows them. Marana, Oro Valley, and Sahuarita love that part. If downtown Tucson has a crime problem a few cops walking the beat could solve that for a lot less than $600,000,000. “There is only so much room to build.” There sure is so much room. Drive out by Ryan Airfield and look at Star Valley at Wade and Valencia. You can do lots of office space that is one and two story. With internet and faxes businesses do not have to be next to each other. “Traditionally such offices go into downtown.” You said it, traditionally. That model is over. Look at the office space along River Road between First and Campbell. That is the new model and it looks a lot mice then a skyscraper ever will. The downtown model of high rises is dead and $600,000,000 will not bring it back to life.

Tucson could attract plenty of business to the city by spending the Rio Nuevo money a lot of other ways. Rio Nuevo will never fully pay for itself. Sure some more people will visit. But the vast majority of people would rather save the gas and go to a pool party right in their neighborhood. They might even walk down the street to a friend’s house and avoid the hassle of parking.6/22/2006 11:10:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Phx Kid, a huge fan of my blog...I'll convert the guy yet, has taken issue with my characterizing Russ Dove as a Randy Graf ally. In a response to one of my previous posts, he said:
Tedski do you have any proof that Dove is working for a/the Republican(s)? Please provide it. It’s kind of like saying Gabrielle Giffords is a lesbian because she served in the Legislature with Kyrsten Sinema. Maybe we should all stay away from innuendo and guilt by association unless we can produce evidence.
For one thing, Sinema, far as I know, isn't lesbian but bisexual. And, you are right, thinking that Giffords is lesbian because she worked in a building near where Sinema works would be silly. Although, your positing that two attractive successful women are lesbian probably says more about your video rental habits than it does about the character or politics of Giffords and Sinema. How's that for innuendo? Let's take the metaphor a bit further though. If I saw a woman holding hands with a woman I knew to be lesbian, I think I could assume that they are going out, right? This wouldn't be "guilt by association," since what is being assumed is the association. Back to the original question, Russ Dove was a "border correspondent" on Steve Aiken's radio show. As we know, Aiken was up until last Friday Graf's campaign manager. Dove has been with Graf at numerous public appearances, so much so that local political wags have refered to Dove as Graf's "security." Heck, this would be the equivalent of seeing two women kissing in front of The Biz and assuming that they are lesbian. Why the concern about people thinking Dove and Graf are connected? Does it sully the reputation of Dove that he hangs with a character like Graf?|W|P|115100097802698909|W|P|Innuendo and Out the Other|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/22/2006 01:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski, I am a big fan of your blog but I am not sure about the conversion thing.

I am sorry that I mischaracterized Sinema as a lesbian instead of a bisexual. Right-wingers like me are still trying to figure out the whole GLBT thing.

I see the link between Dove and Aiken. Since Aiken and Graf have severed ties a post at this time appears outdated. Your best evidence seems to be that Dove attended many Graf events. Maybe I should attend several of your events. Would that mean you have a far right conservative on your staff or inside your campaign?

The video of Giffords and Sinema that you have sounds really interesting but I’m lucky if the little one lets me turn off Thomas Train and Winnie the Pooh long enough to watch Arizona Illustrated on Friday night.6/22/2006 04:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|May I be the first to post that Weiss just release her latest poll today. She is still 10 points ahead of Giffords.

More telling, is a little bird whispering in my ear tells me the results were taken from LD28. Yes, Giffords own district.

If they don't know her, who does?6/22/2006 04:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Nah, I think the Giffords camp is thrilled if a poll right now, before any serious money is spent, only shows Weiss is ahead by 10 points. Especially since that's on the edge of within the margin of error.

According to Patty's own site, that's across CD 8, not limited to any one district.

If Patty were _truly_ thrilled with it, she would have had a press conference and promoted it with a lot of fanfare. She knows it's mediocre news, at best, for her.6/22/2006 06:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|sirocco, right back at you.

As I posted on TDP, I don't think it is bad news or she would not have released it at all and so quickly. The campaign must see it as good news.

I do agree with some of what you said, and will get into my analysis later on that.6/22/2006 06:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|On the press release, since the 3 local newspapers have attacked anything she has put out in the past while actively promoting Giffords, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't send out a press release.

More than likely the did sent one out. The papers are usually a few days behind in reporting. I can predict already how the papers will spin it. Similar to what they did with her early signatures while make a big production out of Giffords' numbers without mentioning she was getting them at least 2 months longer. Can you say bias?

My early analysis is it could be good news for Weiss or good news for Giffords depending on several factors.

My gut reaction? It meaningless at this point but I have to stir up the pot a bit here. :)6/22/2006 06:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Dan Piotrowski|W|P|Wow! Gabrielle behind by 10 points to a woman who has been a fixture of Tucson television for three decades! And this is before Giffords campaign has even started her paid communications that her huge warchest is sure to finance.

I clicked on the link on Patty's web site and I was amazed at the lack of information they have on it. It seems that if the information were good, they'd release a bunch more data about it. I have to assume that the underlying data isn't so sweet for them.

But the information that is on the release seems to be rather telling: Weiss is recognized by 75% in her poll, but just 32% will vote for her.

Wow! If my math is correct that means that the MAJORITY of people who have heard of Patty will NOT vote for her.

Furthermore, the poll says that there is a 35% name recognition advantage. Shouldn't this translate into a lead of more than 10 points? Seems like her support is built on a swampy foundation.

Also, I just checked out Giffords' web site. It looks like she just won the endorsement of another standard-bearer of progressive values -- the League of Conservation Voters. While Weiss is spouting polls, Giffords continues to bring more Democrats into her coalition.

She continues to stockpile a massive warchest of funds that she seems to barely even have touched. Once she starts her campaign commercials (which Patty won't be able to afford, given that she probably just wasted 25 grand on this poll, which probably decreased her total cash on hand by half), her name recognition is sure to skyrocket.

I guess that's the reason why the campaign decided not to even issue a press release touting it. Because the underlying numbers look very bad for the Weiss campaign.6/22/2006 08:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Fedup,

I disagree ... the news she was doing a poll was out there, so she pretty much had to post it as long as the results were not truly dreadful.

The results certainly aren't great for her, but if she puts a positive spin on it they are ok enough she can tlak about it and smile. Like I said though, she's not thrilled ... or, at least, she shouldn't be.6/22/2006 09:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger union guy|W|P|Sirocco,

The results aren't great? She's just a few points down from a consistent 30 year veteran of nightly TV! Gabby's reputation is so great that 30 years of name recognition can barely overcome it even before she starts running television ads and sending mail out. That's a great result.

and Fed Up,

Celinda Lake is an accomplished pollster. She would never poll for a Congressional candidate and only call one small LD in the middle of it. That "little bird" whispering in your ear has no idea what they're talking about.6/23/2006 04:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Union guy,

The results aren't great for Patty, IMO. I have already said I think the Giffords campaign is thrilled.6/23/2006 10:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger union guy|W|P|Sirocco,

I sincerely apologize. I misunderstood your post.6/22/2006 06:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I attended a breakfast meeting yesterday at Tucson Newspapers where candidates and politicos could hear from the editorial staffs of both newspapers and, oh yeah, meet their advertising staff too. An interesting thing for me was when the editors of the papers went over their rules regarding letters to the editor. Some may remember that the Citizen had been taken to task over a letter from Dr. Emery Wright that advocated the summary execution of Muslims. Although courts found that the Citizen had the right to publish this letter, the storm over this case may have prompted them to clarify their letters policy. Michael Chihak, the Citizen's publisher spoke and went over their letter policy, especially in regard to candidates. We all got a copy of a column he wrote back in February that reiterated their letters policy:
Candidates are bound by the same rules for letters to the editor as are others - one letter every 30 days; maximum length 250 words; no personal attacks; no libelous statements; all must be signed with full names and a way for us to contact the writer; all letters are subject to our editing.
I understand the policy. If the idea of letters to the editor is to prompt debate, then the last thing you want is a food fight. However, I asked a question: if there is such a concern about letters to the editor, why no apparent concern about the on-line comments section? Their answer: free speech! Admitedly, on-line comments are harder to police than letters to the editor. But, frankly, this is too smug and easy an answer. If free speech is a defense, or even creates an obligation to publish anything online, it begs the question, why not publish every letter? Of course they don't, and there are good reasons for that. The right to "free speech" doesn't obligate them to publish everything, right? They also stated that there were safeguards, and that they have taken down particularly offensive comments and personal attacks. When I got the chance, I went back and checked on a couple of comments that I was interested in to see if they had been taken down. They hadn't. For example, a comment attached to an article about, of all things, parking fees at the Main Library, generated this wonderful contribution to the public discussion from Steven M., a comment unfortunately typical of the direction of the comments on this article:
Greedy Bastards! I guess I won't be taking my daughter to the Main Library anymore. "One of the great scams" What!?!? One the 'greatest scams' EVER is Richard Elias being appointed supervisor by his departing lover Raul Grijalva. That is the biggest SCAM....ever. The Pima County Board of Supervisors appointing an ethics panel--with a $95,000 budget -- was just retarded (and just another one of the BIGGEST scams I have ever seen). Is Richard Alias [sic] GAY??? There is nothing wrong with that, but gay-dar readings are off the charts. I was just wondering if he was GAY.
Frankly, given the writing in some of the comments on this issue, I wonder if the writers spend too much time in libraries anyhow. The interesting part about this is that this was only the second comment; this wasn't a long discussion that degenerated into this. I've seen this with other commentaries too, and it has unfortunately become de rigeur on the Star's and Citizen's boards. Russ Dove's comments where he refers to Congressman Jim Kolbe as "tail-banger Jim" are still up on an article which doesn't even mention Kolbe. Say, what is it about these guys going on about homosexuality all the time? I'd like freewheeling discussion, but there needs to be some sort of control. Political speech is useless when the best response is in the category of "so's your mom." If it can't be published in a letter to the editor, it shouldn't be published as a comment, especially when the name calling contributes nothing to the argument. NB - Okay...I took a few personal shots. Yeah, I know.|W|P|115098767705624767|W|P|We Won't Publish Personal Attacks, 'Cept When We Do|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/22/2006 06:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Well stated. I've avoided commenting on some of the stories at both papers' websites because of the aggressively attacking tone and beligerently hostile, uncompromising content of other comments.

I think people like to have a forum to air their opinions that wouldn't be acceptable in other forums. Even though registration is required and first names and last initials are displayed in those comments, it seems many of the commenters feel a certain sense of anonymity that makes it "safe" for them to be as offensive as they want. I've seen at least two "Anonymous" posts on those comment threads.

Of course, there are others who air their controversial opinions (nothing wrong with controversy) proudly and give their full names in their comments. Still, there's not really all that fine a line between advancing political (or any other) discourse and just attacking those with whom you disagree. Either you're civil or you're not. What's so hard about that?6/22/2006 06:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Say, what is it about these guys going on about homosexuality all the time?

And Kolbe's not just a homosexual... he's apparently a pitcher.

Methinks we have a closet catcher.6/22/2006 08:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I would almost say that there is a serious case of projection going on but...that would be ever so impolite.6/21/2006 09:45:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This is me doing more catching up on the things that have ticked me off over the last four or five days. The Star has a new political reporter named Daniel Scarpinato. I've met him, and he seems to be eager to do a good job. I've actually liked what he has gotten in the paper so far. However, I have an issue with his Political Notebook column from last Saturday. It contained this item:
Just be careful. Last time [Howard] Dean got overly ambitious about winning (remember his speech after a disappointing showing in the 2004 Iowa caucuses when he screamed "Yeeeeeeeearrrrrrhhhhh!"?), he yelled his way right out of presidential politics.
No, Daniel, I forgot completely about the scream. It's not like they played it on CNN six-hundred times that week. It's not like it became the fodder for every cheap joke by wanna-be political comedians for months afterward. You get it, Dean screamed. It's funny, right? Dude, I know you can do better than that. UPDATE: So, I open up the Weekly and there is Jim Nintzel doing the same bit. Sheesh. Hopefully, we have the "Dan Quayle can't spell 'potato'" jokes way behind us by now.|W|P|115095206043730519|W|P|It Really Isn't That Funny When Leno Does it Either|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/21/2006 10:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Shows lots of creativity on his part--much deep thought.

Another reason why I hate the media. They made that into an "event". They didn't discuss the context--lots of noise in the large room. They "kill" Howard Dean by showing it 2 million times, then later on talk about their "mistake" and provide an explanation but NO MEA CULPA or apology for what they did. Mob media.

Iraq. Worst outcome of mob/group think/no guts media.6/22/2006 06:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|It’s about as funny as the whole thing with Dan Quayle and spelling potato.6/22/2006 08:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Daniel seems really out of touch with the political scene. That media manipulated "scream" was what, 2 years ago? He can't find any more recent material? Hell, I could have pulled 5 things Dean said in the past year to use if I wanted to try some sarcastic attempt at a slam. As cc burro said, "shows lots of creativity on his part". The 'nude erection' comment, was that a sly stab at the hide the salami faux pau comment Dean made? The best part of Daniel's and the Nintzel articles is it might bring more Dean supporters out.

They scheduled that event at a bad time - when most people are getting out of work. I won't be able to make it. I could plop down $5000 to attend the other event, but it might be easier (and cheaper) just to fly to DC and see him.

Daniel needs to check his facts and data too. I have read several of his pieces and his writing is a perfect example of why blogs have become so popular now. Regular citizens do a better job of researching and reporting than the paid reporters.

I shockingly agree with phx kid too. The whole Dan Quayle thing was blown way out of proportion. Maybe he couldn't spell, but he could speak. Which is more than we can say about Bush.6/22/2006 08:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|As a person with a dire lack of spelling ability, I have some sympathy with Dan Quayle's mistake.

As for the Dean scream, you know, a lot of those same stupid media people thought that Dean would bolt the party and do an independent run. Not only did he not do that, but he gave way with a lot more grace then I bet any of them would have.6/21/2006 07:21:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|My adoring public has apparently noticed that I haven't been posting much. I did warn y'all that this might happen. Of course, you are all over me, but Mr. T goes unscathed despite the rampant sloth he has demonstrated on his blog. I would like to point out in my defense that my other blog has been updated. Yes, it isn't politics, but by not going over there, you are missing my witty and brilliant prose directed at such topics as the World Cup, local music and Tucson Roller Derby. I suppose I have an awful lot to catch up on. For example, I've let Espresso Pundit slip with a few without responding. How the heck did I let that happen? Last Friday (yeah, days and days ago) he wrote a bit about what he feels were intemperate comments made by Rep. Kyrsten Sinema at the Yearly Kos convention in Las Vegas. Apparently, she complained about serving with "overweight white men." Overweight white men all over the country are deeply wounded by this statement. This has been part of an ongoing conservative "meme" over the last couple of weeks since folks in the mainstream media finally decided to call out Ann Coulter on her hateful statements against anyone that doesn't share her politcs. The idea, I suppose, is to dig around for statements that a liberal made that are as offensive as what Coulter says on a daily basis. Of course, Sinema isn't being invited on "mainstream" talk shows so she can say such things, and it was probably an out of context joke. Even assuming that what Sinema said was deeply offensive, it is hard to understand how isolated statements from a few liberals here and there justify Coulter's statements insulting 9-11 widows, calling for the killing of Rep. Jack Murtha and advocating the forced conversion of non-Christians. I'm not sure why white men need protection all of a sudden. European males have had a pretty unchallenged place on the top of the world's political heap since a Hapsburg fleet defeated the Turks back in 1571. One of the beefs I have with conservatives is that some have this tendency to sell any gain by blacks, hispanics, women or whoever as some sort of loss for white men, or even worse, an assault on them. Looking at the full context of Sinema's statement, at least as quoted by the American Spectator (The American Spectator complaining about intemperate and intolerant statements is a case study in "glass houses"), it seems like her main point is that it would be nice if the legislature were more reflective of the ethnic diversity of the state. I may have worded it differently, but I don't find this concept racist or intollerant. Espresso pundit brings up the case of Kyle Hindman, a representative who used the word "wetback." I don't know about this particular case, but I do know that the use of that word has a connotation that Hispanics, legal, illegal or born here, are some how outsiders who don't belong here. The fact that a man who made public policy held these views is a problem. Sinema called men who were overweight and white "overweight white men." Not exactly the same, is it? I think that Sinema's statement was out of context. I mean, she doesn't dislike all of the overweight white men she serves with, only the incredibly mature ones who use the House TV cameras to check her out. NB - Interestingly, if you click on the link above, you find that the Hapsburgs have their own web page. Who knew?|W|P|115094761676721312|W|P|Yes, that's Me. All Neglectful and Everything.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/21/2006 09:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski good to have you posting again. Espresso Pundit is not the only blog left unanswered. See http://thinkrightaz.blogspot.com/

And these two blokes even live in Pima County.6/22/2006 06:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Excellent post.

She said something that was true and used no offensive language or epithets.

Something that has bothered me quite a bit about the hot button debates we're seeing in Arizona - immigration and same-sex marriage - are mostly being debated by straight white people.

If you want to create good public policy, shouldn't the subjects (or in our case more often than not, objects) of that policy be actively involved in the policy-making process? Sure, there are people of color and LGBT people holding elected and appointed office. But for the most part, as Kirsten has said, it's overweight white men who control the debate.6/18/2006 07:15:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One reader noted that Dwight Leister's website was changed over the last week or so such that the year is no longer listed as 2006 (although the domain name still says "2006"), reflecting the reality that he did not qualify as a candidate in this election. Apparenly, Leister still thinks of himself as a candidate, as reflected by this comment in the online version of the Daily Star:
As the Democratic Candidate for congress in cd8 that is for securing the border and holding employers accountable what is anti-humane about that!
This was dated June 17th, three days after the deadline for Leister to file his signatures. Dude, I hate to break it to you, but you aren't a candidate anymore. Sorry, maybe next time you should think about actually collecting some signatures. The main article was about Charlie Johnson, the stealth candidate that Randy Graf supporters are running in the Democratic primary. Graf's people should work on checking the rap sheets of their own staff before they try to muck up the Democratic race, really. Johnson, like Leister, doesn't seem to want to do press interviews or be seen in public, but he did actually file signatures, so good job there, man. Why all the secrecy? When Graf associate and convicted felon Russ Dove first approached the Democratic party about getting the voter file for Johnson, he refused to even name the candidate. Given that democracy is a public exercise, it was hard to understand why a candidate would not want his name out there. Maybe they think this is some sort of clever strategy; who knows?|W|P|115064119850353836|W|P|Did Dwight Read the Memo?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/18/2006 11:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Yo Se Quien Soy|W|P|Hey Tedski,

Check out the AZ Starnet article on min wage - Mr. Leister - at 3:30 am this morning (talk about fanatic or what!) logged in a comment about Raul Grijalva not supporting increasing the min wage (which is WRONG!) and swipes at him, cowardly, about his stance on the undocumented.

Wish Mr. L would just get himself more informed about where current (and actually, elected, unlike himself) officials stand.

That's all.6/19/2006 06:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|Is anti-humane a word?6/19/2006 08:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Write-in!6/20/2006 11:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Chris|W|P|RINO hunters set up camp in 26 -

http://www.sonoranalliance.com/6/20/2006 04:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|Honestly, Tedski ....

We're going to need you to pick up the pace. No story for ALL of Monday. Its like cutting off my arm or leg. I cannot live without Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.6/21/2006 05:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Ted. Dude.

We need MORE

should add guest bloggers6/21/2006 06:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|You mean, to run you actually have to RUN? Perish the thought.7/05/2006 10:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Dwight D. Leister:Chair|W|P|Dude; maybe you had not read the requirements of the F.E.C. for being a Candidate for President, Senate and oh yes Congress wheather or not you are on the ballot you must file as a Candidate. Also the same rules apply for The Clerk of Congress! I have been a Candidate for Congress since April of 2004 and continue to speak out on the "Future of the Democratic Party. It is NOT about ME it IS about where the Democratic Party IS headed in the Future,and the Platform of open borders, not enforcing legal employement and blanket amnesty that " I COULD NOT SWALLOW!" I can NOT stand in front of my constituents and LIE to them as every other Candidate is except Bill Johnson about how great The Democratic Party has been enforcing the "Rule Of Law" that got The United States in this mess in the first place!

Having been a Candidate for Pima County Sheriff in 1968 I am very aware of how the party treats anyone who looses a primary as was the case in 1968 as I exposed a corrupt Sheriff from my own party in Office for 15 years ,then his being indited on over 80 counts from a Pima County Grand Jury and the Board of Supervisors offering me the job. I turned it down and let Dupnik take it because my Funeral Homes were contracting with the County to provide Mourge space and ambulances from my ambulance company. I felt it was a conflict of interst,even though Dupnik said he wanted me to take the job and wished I had. I put my values,ethics and morals above "Politics" I challenge anyone in CD8 or yourself to do the same!

Dwight D. Leister:Chair
www.committee-to-elect.org6/17/2006 06:42:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Randy Graf announced this morning that Steve Aiken is no longer a member of his campaign. Graf is saying that he had no idea how bad the charges were; he had originally said that they were no more serious than giving an underage person beer. Really, no one on your campaign knew how bad it really was? Here is what Jade Stokes, a Graf campaign aide, posted last night to Blake Morlock's original article:
I, as Randy's chair on his Sr. Advisory board, investigated the whole story. And found no merit on it's face. Steve talked about it on his radio show, and in his book, everyone who knows Steve and Randy knows the details.
So, this guy had talked about this on his radio show, in his book and Graf's "senior advisors" knew the full extent of the charges, but Graf was totally unaware, eh? Graf's campaign is a confederation of all sorts of iffy characters. When I was on staff for the party in 2002, a couple of us discovered that Stokes was using fraudulently using press credentials to tape Democratic party events for the Republicans (we made a call to the station that had hired him, and they weren't happy to see their equipment used this way). Graf is apparently still happy to have a convicted felon like Russ Dove working for him, despite his history of intimidating Hispanic voters and making threatening statements to opponents. The Graf people are already spinning this as coming from the Steve Huffman campaign. Why? Because nothing is ever a Republican's fault, it's those nasty "LIEberals." In Graf's odd view of the political spectrum, Huffman is a liberal. I'm waiting for Hillary Clinton and Michael Moore to be behind this too. Easy to blame Huffman, really, since the Democrats would have rather launched this little rocket round about September 13th. I don't know though, if I were Huffman, I would have waited until about August to do this. Graf has fired this guy, and by the primary, it could be old news and no good to Huffman at all.|W|P|115055353139465794|W|P|Graf: Steve Who?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/17/2006 08:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|For a timeline of the story see http://thinkrightaz.blogspot.com/6/17/2006 08:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|I love the photo Gallery on Aikens website! He looks like a real creepy guy, lurking behind people while someone else snaps a quick photo.

He's wearing an earpiece with a wire running down his front. Is he trying to pose as Secret Service to get as close as possible to the Reich Wing Celebs?

JC Watts looks startled as is if the pedophile has just creeped up behind him!

He's standing behind Gary Bauer and others while they are sitting and talking. How can you say, "I got my picture taken with . . ." When your skulking around behind people while some unseen sidekick is snapping away on the Polaroid!6/17/2006 12:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|Re-posted "The Fix" blog:

3. Arizona's 8th District: Much of the vulnerability of this seat depends on whom Republicans put forward in their primary later this summer. Former state Rep. Randy Graf is the best known of the candidates and also the least likely to hold the seat in the fall. Retiring Rep. Jim Kolbe (R) has said Graf cannot win a general election and has endorsed moderate state Rep. Mike Huffman, who led the GOP field in fundraising through the first quarter of the year. Democrats have a competitive primary of their own between former state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords and former television anchor Patty Weiss. We still expect Graf to be the GOP nominee, which is why this race stays so high on the Line. (Previous ranking: 4)6/17/2006 04:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski, I thought you said this guy was associated with Graf? Now I read he is working for a Democrat.

http://www.azcentral.com/blogs/index.php?blog=85&title=mexican_flag_burner_running_dem_s_campai&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&blogtype=Pluggedin/6/17/2006 04:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|He's doing both...that's one of the reasons the Democrats were unwilling to give Dove access to the voter file.6/18/2006 07:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|toc-

Let's be fair, he's not a pedophile, but an ephebophile.6/18/2006 09:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski do you have any proof that Dove is working for a/the Republican(s)? Please provide it. It’s kind of like saying Gabrielle Giffords is a lesbian because she served in the Legislature with Kyrsten Sinema. Maybe we should all stay away from innuendo and guilt by association unless we can produce evidence.6/20/2006 05:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|Gabby never served with Kyrsten Sinema.6/20/2006 06:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|They were never in the LEGISLATURE at the same time?6/16/2006 08:15:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, well, well. In a bit of schadenfraude that some of us wish would have come after the primary, it turns out that local talk show looney and Randy Graf campaign manager Steve Aiken was convicted of charges steming from his having sex with teenagers back in 1996. What's worse: he was working at a program for troubled youth and these were clients. I know that that probably isn't any sort of legally aggravating factor, but given what I do for a living, it really bugs me. Of course, Aiken protests that he was "wrongly convicted." I'll lay off the irony of a law and order conservative complaining that any innocent person is ever arrested and convicted. Well, come to think of it, I work with a lot of people that have been in and out of prison. You know, when you ask them, hardly any of them did anything wrong either. I took a quick perusal of Aiken's website, and I find the usual tripe about how us liberals are leading the country straight to Hell, plus, I find a link to a group that he apparently leads called Men of Valor Ministries. According to their website, they are the "practical work after Promise Keepers," and he quotes himself on the website saying "It is my highest honor to serve my Lord & Saviour, Jesus Christ, by being a spokesperson for this most worthy ministry." Oh, Steve, why do you see the mote in your neighbor's eye but fail to see the beam in your own? Yes, we lefty Catholics know the Bible too. In a further bit of ironic fun, the first response to the item about the conviction is from a certain Russ D. Mr. D. (No relation to Chuck) says:
If we bow to dirty politics, as we have for the last 20 years, at the hands of "tailbone banger jim kolbe" we deserve the life we will have – a life of slavery. Get your head out of the sand, find your backbone, and protect your tailbone and your wallet. "tailbone banger jim kolbe" is now and for as long as I have known him a liar! Choose ye life or death - light or darkness - truth or untruth, whatever the choice you make, no choice is not an option. You either choose the Truth or you are a part of the lie! Signed russ dove, an American Citizen who says, “I have had enough!”
This is, of course, another Randy Graf campaign associate, Russ Dove. Dove also has a felony conviction, this one for grand theft. Yep, good to know that Graf is keeping this country safe from those criminal aliens across the line. We need to protect all the jobs for criminals here. NB - I was going to put the "sic" after all of Dove's mispellings and bad grammar, but it was just too much.|W|P|115051588740552473|W|P|No Wonder Why Graf Wants Guns in Bars: We Need Protection from His Staff!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/16/2006 09:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Not sure what to say about that...6/16/2006 10:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|I was just posting about this on TDP. Looks like Huffman will be the nominee.6/16/2006 11:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|That is the first time I have heard that phrase.

And anyone who takes advantage of the young people in their charge (like this case) should be still in jail.6/17/2006 01:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|Like Ken Bennett's son, Clif 'Broomstick' Bennett?

He's....oh, wait. Never mind.

This stuff makes you long for the good ol' days, when a scandal involved freely consenting adults in the Oval Office.6/17/2006 10:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Cpmaz...that is the thing that bugs me about the Republicans (one of the many anyway) when they do something wrong and hurtful, it is "oh well youthful high spirits, or simply something that has been blown out of proportion..." but when we Dems do something that is nowhere near as bad, it is impeachable.

The other thing about Clinton's scandal over his bad behavior with a 24 year old woman is that we could pay attention to the scandal because the man was actually doing a decent job of running the country.6/17/2006 05:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|Elizabeth -

You wrote "the man was actually doing a decent job of running the country. "

Part of me has always thought that's what the Reps hated most about Bill Clinton.

He was actually good at the job, and his competence made them look bad by comparison.6/19/2006 06:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|Tail-Bone Banger... So what is he a pelvis bone banger, if he wanted to he real creative he could have said "Keep your Cock off my Coxis".6/20/2006 05:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Oh yes Cpmaz6/16/2006 07:23:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The dispute between Basha's and the United Food and Commercial Workers has been heating up as of late. Some of you may remember a few weeks ago that UFCW members meeting with Basha's employees (an act protected under federal law) were arrested at the request of management of an AJ's in Phoenix. The UFCW has been holding informational pickets over company health policy. Basha's has raised the health care premiums they charge employees, which are now higher than they are at unionized chains in the state. Apparently, management believes that employees shouldn't be given information about this. Basha's representative Mike Proulx has sent a letter to Basha's employees that uses the same tired arguments that companies have used for decades: the unions are just after your dues, and darnit, we just couldn't do all of these wonderful things for you if the union was standing in the way. Of course, if workers had been buying that one over the last century or so, we wouldn't have had the fourty hour work week, workman's compensation or, yes Mr. Proulx, employee health benefits. Proulx finishes his letter to employees as follows:
The union knows they've got nothing to offer us, so they'd rather take potshots and hurt us as much as they can. In taking such a position, the UFCW shows their true colors. You see, the UFCW does not hold your welfare uppermost in mind; its highest priority is DUES DUES DUES even if they put us out of business and cost you your job. Together, we will successfully met this challenge. We are proud of how hard we have worked and the market share we serve in Arizona. We are proud to have in our ranks the best grocery experts in the industry, you. You have my complete assurance that we will never force a union on you, and we will exercise all of our legal rights and vigorously prosecute the UFCW to the full extent of the law and all illegal activity.
That last bit sounds like a bit of a threat against union-sympathetic employees, doesn't it? Also, what is this about the union being "forced" on the employees? We live in an "open shop" state where no one can be forced to join a union, and even if they could be, it would be hard to "force" employees to join a union when the organizers are being arrested. So typical, a group wants to come in and represent the folks at the bottom, but they are the bad guys and the corporation is the put-upon helpless victim.|W|P|115051306800501856|W|P|Union Basha-ing|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/16/2006 11:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I got a letter from the union about organizing Bashas. I think that the local grocery store is organized near my house since it is not a Bashas...but I certainly will not be shopping at any of the chain's stores until they are union.

And unions need dues, how else can they pay for the lawyers to solve the 9 million frivolous lawsuits the management throws at them or the workers?6/17/2006 12:13:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|TEDSKI--

Do you know where Gabrielle Giffords stands on this difference of opinion, so to speak, between UFCW and Basha?6/18/2006 10:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger DRP|W|P|Eddie Basha, an AZ anti-union dem.

Basha's needs a union, esp. as the major store in AZ indian country.6/15/2006 06:49:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, I was all ready to write a post about how Francine Shachter, Bill Johnson and Dwight Leister were unable to file. I had even checked the Secretary of State's website around eight o'clock and didn't see their names. I noticed in the corner that the list hadn't been updated that morning. Darn...the snark has to wait, I thought. Well, Shachter and Johnson did file. However, Leister did not. Question for you: was Leister actually running? Did anyone see him at a single campaign forum or public event? Did anyone sign a Dwight Leister petition? Was he actually campaigning, or just sending out poorly written e-mails saying insulting things about his opponents? Leister's website is still up like he's a for-real candidate. He hasn't updated it to reflect his lack of filing, nor has his confusion of the semi-colon and colon been fixed, nor has his spelling of Pancho Villa's name been corrected. I take particular offense to this, considering my grandfather shared his nom de guerre.|W|P|115042349236664651|W|P|Late Filings|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/15/2006 08:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|maybe he just wanted the attention?6/15/2006 11:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Espo|W|P|Let us not forget the independent bid of good ol' "Average Joe"6/16/2006 08:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Maybe he kept the site up for his run next time. Toward the bottom of the page it says, "Representing your voice in Washington in 2008!"6/16/2006 09:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|Mr. Leister's page also includes a rather creative interpretation of the Texas Revolution of 1836 that has little to do with what actually occurred. Unfortunately, it is such ignorance of Southwestern history that has informed our debate about immigration.6/16/2006 01:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|What do you mean "creative interpretation ... that has little to do with what actually occurred?" Are you referring to the use of the word "invaders" to describe the Mexican Army? Because technically the Army invaded the Alamo, thus making them "invaders." I'm guessing your reading a broader (and incorrect) meaning into his use of that word, though.6/16/2006 01:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|p.s. i'm from there, so you can skip the history lesson.6/16/2006 01:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|I am not sure how the Mexican Army "invaded" a Mexican province. It seems to me that they laid seige to a rebel garrison. While most of these rebels were, indeed, Mexican citizens fed up with the rule of Santa Ana, a few were Americans with no legitimate business in Texas, in other words, illegal immigrants.6/16/2006 01:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|Wonder is Giffords is going to hound Dwight for his endorsement? Maybe Patty will beat her to it. She did get Tim "who?" Saltan.6/16/2006 03:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Tom, it is not just ignorance of southwest history but a general lack of historical knowledge period that causes some of the issues with immigration today.6/16/2006 05:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|That's kinda like saying the British laid seige to a rebel colony at the start of the American revolution.

The Texians had declared their independence, so from their perspective they were no longer a "Mexican province."

As for the Americans with no legitimate business, are you talking about people like Bowie who were just there to fight or the settlers who came after Austin's original group?6/16/2006 06:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Uhm ... the British _did_ "lay siege" to a rebel colony at the start of the American Revolution.6/15/2006 07:18:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Gabrielle Giffords campaign yesterday won the endorsement of EMILY's List. EMILY's List only endorses pro-Choice Democratic women, but there are three pro-Choice women in this race, two in the top tier. Had Patty Weiss not been in this race, Giffords would have probably secured this endorsement a heck of a lot sooner. Giffords fits the profile of an EMILY's List endorsement: she's been in office with a record of supporting their issues and winning campaigns. This may also be an indication of which campaign the DC folks finds more viable and credible. Of course, an EMILY's List endorsement is not a guarantee of victory. One may remember the last time they came into an Arizona race big: Sen. Elaine Richardson's run against then Supervisor Raúl Grijalva. Interestingly, they had to dial back their early endorsement of Richardson in that race when Lisa Otondo jumped in. Richardson's campaign made many mistakes: they ran too far to the right, they were relentlessly negative, but their biggest one was assuming that big name endorsements, like those from national organizations like EMILY's List, took the place of local grassroots support. I don't see Giffords's campaign making those mistakes, especially since she has been taking advice from Grijalva in this run. Look for Weiss's campaign to spin this as "yet another group of Washington insiders" trying to muscle their way into the race. This would be more credible had they not been coveting the endorsement as well. Weiss's campaign last week announced that Nina Roosevelt Gibson, FDR's granddaughter, is endorsing her. I know this is important to them, because I recieved three, yes three, separate e-mails about this. Not three copies of the same e-mail (I get two copies of every e-mail from the Giffords campaign, they've got to do something about that...), but three separate releases. In Gibson's endorsement letter, she talks about Social Security as an important part of her grandfather's legacy. The "Social Security Reform" that the president touted only a year ago is something that he would prefer we forget about, of course this is easier since he never actually presented a plan. Weiss could get some traction reminding retirees and near-retirees of this attempt to gut one of the most important pieces of the social safety net. It couldn't hurt to remind folks that the incumbent, Jim Kolbe, has been at the forefront of Social Security decimation for years. Also over the last week, Giffords announced that the Arizona Education Association endorsed her. This was to be expected, a reward for her support of their issues in the legislature. It would have been difficult for a candidate with no record to counter that. One may remember that last month, the Tucson Federation of Teachers, a smaller organization but affiliated with the AFL-CIO, endorsed Weiss. I won't even get into that whole NEA - AFT split...I don't get it either.|W|P|115038388063345778|W|P|Who Is This Emily?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/15/2006 09:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger The Screaming Centrist|W|P|Everytime I see mention of the organization EMILY I immediately think of the Ellen Jamesians, which is probably very, very wrong. It's because the names sound similar to me (both begin with the "eh" sound, contain the letters 'l' and 'm', and involve women's names, which equates to sounding similar in my brain).6/15/2006 11:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I have been reading some posts for awhile comparing Giffords' campaign to that of the failed Richardson campaign. I think Ted has it right here. What people forget about Grijalva and that race was this. Grijalva had a long history as a Hispanic activist, was a school board member, and a Supervisor. He had experience with state and local issues and had built an impressive organization over the years. Finally, well I will say it, because it is freaking obvious. His district is also heavily Hispanic and Native American...that he had championed issues important to these constituencies for years did not hurt one bit and did not help Richardson.

So what about Giffords then? She also has experience, has built an organization and ties in political circles. She also has a strong progressive record to speak of. She earned Grijalva's backing early because of this. Sounds like she is more like Grijalva (and not Richardson) than the other candidates in her race.

Last, she was labelled the "establishment candidate" by Weiss and Latas today in our local paper. Well...hate to say it, but "establishment" sometimes means that you just have supporters and a better campaign. Sometimes establishment means "winner."


Roger6/15/2006 11:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|The word that i heard up in Prescott was that Gabby also nailed the AFL-CIO endorsement?

Guess Gabby must be in bed with those "Establishment" working men and women ?6/15/2006 03:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|In bed with the working men and women?

If she is in bed with anyone it's the union hacks. The membership got zero say-so. I know, I'm one of them.

In my work place, those who are politically aware are backing Latas.6/15/2006 04:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|EMILY is checking out Ellen Simon, who is running against Rick Renzi. Wouldn't be surprised if they endorse her.6/15/2006 05:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Giffords supporters over on Art's blog are promoting Giffords as pro-abortion. You might want to coach them on that.

boohoo said..."In bed with the working men and women?" :) You must have hard the same rumor I did. I wasn't going to bring it up though.

I do agree with some of Roger's analysis on this one. The Richardson comparison is comparing apples to oranges. Giffords biggest advantage is Grijalva. It could backfire though, if she loses the general. More than one union rep is reported to have felt "strong armed" as others have reported. Someone may end up with egg on their faces.6/15/2006 05:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|I mean "heard" the same rumor. Don't try this at work folks.6/15/2006 07:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|"More than one union rep is reported to have felt 'strong armed' as others have reported."

I'm not a union member, but that's exactly how I've felt by the big-named and powerful supporters of former Senator Giffords. Especially early on, they were very derisive and dismissive to me whenever I mentioned there were other Democrats who had declared their candidacies.

(And while I also like Jeff Latas too, I haven't thrown my support - such as it is - behind any horse in the race yet.)

I genuinely like her and appreciate her work in the Legislature, but her supporters - especially her early, wealthy, powerful ones - really turned me off by making the case that her nomination was inevitable and she is the best chance for the Democrats to reclaim the seat in 22 years.

Whether that's true or not, call me a purist. I think there's a lot to be said for the primary process, at least at the federal level.6/15/2006 11:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Just so you know, Gabby has definitely NOT secured the AFL-CIO endorsement... nor will she, with all of this Wal-Mart business. It's not the working men and women that she's "in bed with," it's the Wal-Mart execs who don't want to reimburse Arizona for the burden their under-insured employees are putting on AHCCCS-- which is why Gabby killed the bill to that effect last session... and also took money from the Wal-Mart lobbyist!
So yeah, I don't see the AFL-CIO endorsement for her in the forseeable future...6/16/2006 07:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Zona Dem and others on the Walmart issue,

Why then has Giffords been endorsed by most of the unions already? Do they just not "get it" or do they know that her record overall is quite labor friendly and that her record overall is quite liberal and progressive.

She is a good Democrat and as I predicted months ago, the supporters of other candidates would pick and choose votes to sully her reputation in order to help elect another candidate that has no record, no votes, and asks us to "trust" them. Sorry...I don't...not for an office that is this important and not for one that will demand real political experience.6/16/2006 07:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Michael:

How have people been strong armed into anything by Gabrielle or her supporters? Supporters for every candidate are doing their level best to get their candidate the nomination. The problem in this case for the others is that they had few political ties in the district, they were not able to raise the funds, and mobilize the support to go after what will be a Republican machine of money and influence in the fall. Giffords' campaign has done just about everything right here and what people are decrying now are ridiculous notions that the "fix was in", "strong arming", ect.

I remember awhile back when Weiss supporters were arguing that Giffords could not match her or her name recognition. I am just not seeing it.6/16/2006 08:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Kralmajales, you hit the nail on the head: they *didn't* get it, the Wal-Mart stuff hadn't surfaced yet. This is just another reason why it's foolish to endorse so early...
Secondly, Patty grew up in a union family. I think that better qualifies her to receive the endorsement than someone who owned a small business that was *not* a union shop.
I'm not saying Gabby doesn't have some appeal to the unions-- obviously she does, or she would not have received those several endorsements. That appeal comes, however, purely from some misguided sense of pragmatism based on her fundraising.
That being said, all the money in the world can't make up for an unqualified candidate, and I think those organizations will be backpedaling as fast as they can as this stuff continues to break.6/16/2006 09:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Ariz Dem ... that vote has been out there for several years ... it didn't "just surface".

Believe it or not, unions, etc., really do study voting records (when available) prior to deciding endorsements.6/16/2006 09:09:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.6/16/2006 12:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|I think Latas is the union kid here. Patty didn't grow up in a union family. Corret me if I'm wrong.6/21/2006 03:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger DBeamer|W|P|American Federation of Teachers is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. The NEA wants to act is if they are a part of organized labor but refuses to join AFL-CIO.6/14/2006 06:33:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, the final filings have been posted to the Secretary of State's website. As I expected, neither John Verkamp nor Leonard Clark filed. I had been approached months ago by a Leonard Clark supporter who had a petition, but since then, I heard nothing except posts on various websites. Verkamp tried to make quite a splash when he jumped in, but I never got the impression that either he nor his supporters understood how hard it was to get signatures. The story I heard was that the signatures would somehow materialize during anti-war rallies. No such luck. One candidate that filed that suprised me was former Graham County sheriff Richard Mack. I had no idea he was planning to run. He's got a bit of a name id, although it is useful to point out that Graham County voters kicked him out of office a decade ago because his relentless grandstanding interfered with, well, you know, law enforcement. My understanding is that he moved to Utah and served as a county sheriff up there for a while. If he agressively campaigns, does he cut into Jon Kyl's right wing support, or does he just make Kyl look moderate by comparison?|W|P|115033641407255834|W|P|Sound and Fury and All of That...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/14/2006 08:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Let the games begin!6/14/2006 08:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|You know, there may be a dozen or so people active in AZ politics that make Jon Kyl look moderate. The Libertarians may have found one. Richard Mack may appeal to some who would otherwise support Kyl, especially in the more rural areas of the state.

Having said that, I don't expect Mack to make much of a difference in the race; a few fringe votes in the sparsely-populated areas aren't going to cost Kyl his job,

Pederson's appeal to centrists could.6/14/2006 09:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Since Mack is running as an Independent he is more likely to cut into the votes of the other Independent, Pederson, rather then cutting into Kyl’s Republican base. Maybe the number of signatures filed by Mack indicates how far he is going to get in the race.

Speaking of signatures, Grey is the standout. He filed 1441. Did he get all those in 24 hours? That is quite a feat.

Here is the link for the number of signatures filed -
http://www.azsos.gov/election/2006/Primary/FullListing.htm/6/14/2006 11:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Interesting slate of candidates for the House in LD28...6/15/2006 05:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|Anyone notice the endorsement Giffords received from EMILY's List?6/15/2006 08:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|wow. 1441 signatures in 24 hours. i wonder if that's some kind of record. I guess maybe it's not all that hard to ge signatures. Nevertheless, Gray must have been sweating bullets all day yesterday.6/13/2006 05:11:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The filing deadline is tommorrow, but many candidates have already filed. Gabrielle Giffords, for example, filed yesterday with great fanfare and bragged that she has signatures in every single precinct in the district. Even Elgin and Portal, I guess. Patty Weiss filed on the first day, hoping that being the first to file would create a press splash. Unfortunately, it also happened to be the same day as Bush's immigration speech and, my memory fails me here, there was a big development in one of the copious Washington scandals. This sucked out all the political news oxygen that day. For those who don't know: candidates must file a certain number of signatures, based on the number of registered voters in their district, to get on the ballot. This requirement applies even to incumbents. Note: I wasn't able to find out the numbers for the Libertarian candidates, mostly because I did not know their names. There is also an independent in CD 8 named Jay Quick who filed 6042 signatures. Congressional District 7 Democrats (Minimum: 641) Raúl Grijalva - 2878 Republicans (Minimum: 338) Ron Drake - 824 Joe Sweeney - Not yet filed Congressional District 8 Democrats (Minimum: 665) Gabrielle Giffords - 6952 William Johnson - Not yet filed Jeff Latas - 1631 Dwight Leister - Not yet filed Alex Rodriguez - 1155 Francine Schacter - Not yet filed Patty Weiss - 2051 (Also filed a supplement, not included) Republicans (Minimum: 759) Frank Antenori - 867 Randy Graf - 2045 Mike Hellon - 1400 Steve Huffman - 1098 Mike Jenkins - 1324 (Also filed a supplement, not included) The number of signatures can be looked at as a sign of early grass roots support. Looking at it that way, it looks as though, among the CD 8 major party candidates, Giffords and Graf have the best organizations right now. You may remember that a few weeks back, Ron Drake was advertising on Craig's List for signature gatherers. This has apparently led to rival Joe Sweeney to claim that Drake was, get this, hiring illegal aliens to gather his signatures. Oh, that Joe, such a card. Huffman and Antenori happened to file at the same time this morning, which led to Huffman giving Antenori a bit of grief for his small number of signatures (you know how we men are.) Um, Steve, Mike Hellon filed about 300 more than you, and his campaign is officially classified as "hapless." Heck, Mike Jenkins filed more than you. I'd try to stop calling attention to that if I were you. People will think you are compensating. The big question: will Johnson, Leister and Schacter actually be filing? If Leister isn't able to file, will he blame Martin Bacal again?|W|P|115024688674462181|W|P|Early Candidate Filings|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/13/2006 06:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Of course not Ted, he is going to blame me since that also makes no sense and I told him to shut up once.

Now this is not on the SOS website at the moment because he just filed but Harry has submitted nearly 3,000 signatures. I did notice this strange name "Prezelski" on the website but it was some dude named Tom so I have no idea who that is. :p6/13/2006 07:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Thane Eichenauer|W|P|The Libertarian Party candidate for AZ congressional dictrict 5 is Warren Severin.

Mark Yanonne is the Libertarian Party candidate for congressional district 3.

Other Libertarian candidates for office can be found at http://thelfactor.org/.6/13/2006 08:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|Also, there is a Libertarian for Govoernor. The guy who ran last time. I like him ...6/13/2006 08:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mexilina|W|P|OMG the L factor? My hats off to it... they mention Stephen Colbert and the website to thank him for his speech at the White House correspondent's dinner. Hahaahahahah I LOVE IT!!

ps thanks for posting, Ted...you see! there's more to life than that one cup.6/13/2006 10:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The question I have about the libertarians is why not run Kielsky again? Y'all do want to pick up votes right?

And there is life beyond soccer Mexilina? Are you sure Ted is ready for that information? :p6/14/2006 12:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski, you left out your friend Montgomery. He filed on Monday, 8,310 signatures. I understand he also got in all of his $5 forms.6/14/2006 08:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|What about Don Goldwater? Has anyone heard anything about him? I think he's the only gubernatorial candidate who hasn't filed yet.6/14/2006 09:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger union guy|W|P|Don Goldwater filed this morning, but says he's weeks away from having his $5 forms completed.6/14/2006 09:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|thanks union guy. after i posted, i found howie fischer's article.

makes you wonder about his viability. dude has been running for ten months and still hasn't picked up enough $5 contributions.

this has got to be a huge advantage for Munsil.6/14/2006 09:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.6/14/2006 10:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|See http://thinkrightaz.blogspot.com/ for comments about Fisher's article.6/14/2006 12:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|"The number of signatures can be looked at as a sign of early grass roots support. Looking at it that way, it looks as though, among the CD 8 major party candidates, Giffords and Graf have the best organizations right now."

Correction. By your own numbers, Jay Quick and Giffords have the "best organizations right now". Hard to believe that is true, but by your logic, they would be the front runners. Given that Quick got more than all Repbulicans and all Democrats (except Giffords)and she only got slightly more while in the race 5 months longer, looks like Quick is the man to beat. As an independent he can pull from independents, Republicans and Democrats.

Plus you gotta love his name. I can just think of all the slogans and fundraising campaigns he could have.

Back to reality, it sounds like Giffords had a successful fundraiser with her marketing blitz around her signature gathering and Weiss had a great visit in DC this week.6/14/2006 01:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger elRanchero|W|P|rumor is that State Senate incumbent candidate Chuck Gray turned in his signatures with the wrong election day on the petition. He has until 5pm tonight to get 500 new signatures in. Looks like the Dems may pick up an easy seat.6/14/2006 03:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger slim|W|P|I wholeheartedly support Giffords in this race, but I have to throw in with fedup on this -- the big story here is silver-medalist Jay Quick.

It's a sad commentary about the state of our so-called democracy that this "average Joe", despite his amazing showing, will be all but totally ignored by the press and virtually unknown to the public come election day.

But keep your eyes on this guy. He's got something going on.6/14/2006 06:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger elRanchero|W|P|Sorry to get your hopes up. Gray says he has collected 900 signatures in the last 24 hours. We'll have to wait and see if they check out.

Here's today's Republic article about his typo.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0614political-insider0614.html6/14/2006 06:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger grannuaile|W|P|Verkamp missed his minimum by about 500 signatures. Said if he'd had 2 more weeks he would have had it.

Maybe he should have followed Chuck Gray around today.6/09/2006 07:10:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Auditor General is accusing Pima County of misspending some $5 Million in shared gas tax revenue. $1 Million apparently went to tchochke, trinkets, gimmies and, apparently, dry cleaning. Unfortunately, our so-called friends in Phoenix will probably use this as an excuse to mess with transportation outlays to Pima County. They become angry about this because no government in Maricopa County has ever wasted a dime on such frippery. A little noticed part of this is what the other $4 Million was used for. That money was spent on transit. Trouble is, this money can only be spent on transportation, not transit. I realize that the words look almost alike, and mean almost the same thing, but transportation is supposed to only mean roads. Lots of 'em. State law actually prohibits the use of gas tax money to be spent on transit programs. Our two latest transportation/transit plans that made the ballot down here both relied on a regressive sales tax. This became a persuasive argument against the plans in both elections. Some, like my fellow blogger Daniel Patterson, supported the latest plan but had a huge problem with the funding mechanism. Unfortunately, local goverments that want to fund transit have little choice but to fund such things except through a sales tax because of this antiquated idea that roads are the only solution for transportation problems. The irony is that many users of transit would probably be the working poor that take the biggest hit from a sales tax.|W|P|114990657681564100|W|P|But, Transportation Means Moving Things From Place to Place, Right?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/09/2006 09:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|If I may, I blame establishment Democrats for the passage of the RTA and its regressive tax. Daniel, best to him, supported a plan that benefited developers and big money interets at the expense of our environment. But at least he voted against the tax. Mr. Steve Farley, running for LD 28, not promoted the plan all over the city and even appeared to sign on to the C.A.V.E. ad, calling opponents to the plan "anti-everything" and specifically children, elderly, schools, first responders...etc. etc.

Most who follow the blogs know how I feel on the RTA. So many prominent Democrats supported it...and I will remind them.

Roger6/09/2006 10:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|If you don’t like what the Auditor General had to say about Pima County transportation spending make sure your don’t read their final accounting report on Rio Nuevo or the RTA.6/10/2006 07:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|Part of the HURF, of course, comes from the Vehicle License Tax, and not the gas tax. There is no constitutional prohibition on using this money for transit. It should also be noted that the state uses HURF for purposes that do not directly go for asphalt, such as the funding of DPS and support for Arizona Highways Magazine.

As for phx kid's Rio Nuevo comment, it should be noted that much of what went wrong occurred when a Republican majority on the council was allowing the previous city manager to run amok.6/10/2006 01:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tom is correct that Rio Nuevo has had Republican involvement and support. Huffman is a good example.

This does not change the fact that it is a huge waste of taxpayer money and a fiscal boondoggle.6/10/2006 05:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Wait a minute Ted, are you trying to claim that people should not always drive big wasteful SUVs/oversized Pickup trucks on roads with only one person in the car at the time?

I am shocked! Shocked I tells ya!6/10/2006 10:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Doesn't gas fuel many of the buses? So isn't the operation of the buses paying gas taxes?6/12/2006 07:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Sorry, off topic here. Back on May 27th Tedski questioned whether Bill Montgomery was in trouble in his race for Arizona AG. He got his answer today.

On the issue of off topic I am now posting at http://thinkrightaz.blogspot.com
If you can stand the truth take a look.

Oh, was there a recent poll in the Kyl/Pederson race?6/12/2006 09:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Tedski..

get your facts straight... it was 10,000 dollars not 1 Million Dollars about 1 % of your quoted number.

By the way, the charges for the "drycleaning" was for laundry service for the safety clothes highway workers are mandated to wear by the state.

Must be a slow newsday...6/12/2006 11:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Yes, I recieved another call correcting me on that. I got the numbers from the Star article, my mistake.

The main point I was trying to make was about state transportation money not being able to be spent on transit.6/09/2006 07:48:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|My time that I waste typing screeds on here will be wasted watching the World Cup for the next few weeks. Not that I will stop posting, it's just that the posts will be more rare, and thus more precious... I will be rooting for our Yanks, el Tri, and the Biało-czerwoni...we'll see how it goes.|W|P|114986469315045061|W|P|But, But...It's the World Cup|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/09/2006 08:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|For me its the USA, Mexico, and I like to pick a team that I don't know much about to follow...just for fun...so for me, it will be Ivory Coast.6/09/2006 12:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|So far ECU has one point and the Irish announcer guy has gone bonkers at least twice.6/09/2006 02:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|That "Irish announcer guy" is Tommy Smyth with a Y. He does go bonkers, but its cute because of his accent.

His partner in the box is the English Adrian Healy, who used to do New England Revolution broadcasts. What is confusing is that New England used to have a goalkeeper named Aidan Heany...go figure.

One of their other broadcasters is a Scot named Derek Rae, who used to not have a Scotish accent when he broadcast domestic games, but now that he is doing international games, he talks like Groundskeeper Willy.6/09/2006 09:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Both were awesome games...I am excited about tomorrow.

Roger6/10/2006 04:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I am annoyed that I only got to see the tailend of Sweden vs T&T which was 0-0 but T&T won. *shrugs* If I knew more then I could understand that one but okay. :)

And yes Ted, it WAS cute because of his accent. Guys with British Isles accents are automatically +5 cuter.6/08/2006 07:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Word has come down through the transom (Radio Free Europe...) that the Patty Weiss campaign has brought in a fella named Andrew Myers, whose most recent job was with Janet Napolitano, to run her communications operation. Weiss's current communications director is former reporter Rhonda Bodfield Bloom. It would be easy to over interpret this. Bodfield Bloom is staying on, so there is no "firing" here. If there are people out there that are concerned that Weiss's name hasn't been in the paper enough, well, welcome to Southern Arizona's journalistic reality. It has been difficult for most of the candidates to break through. My guess is that Myers has been brought on because he is more experienced with being inside a political operation than Bodfield Bloom is, although she covered politics for a few years and even interviewed me once. She doesn't remember though... Another over interpretation I've heard is that this is somehow an indication that Napolitano has "taken an interest" in this race. Doubtful. For one thing, this is still anyone's race, with either Weiss or Gabrielle Giffords being the front runner, and Jeff Latas being the scrappy underdog looking for an upset. I doubt that the governor will get involved at all, it's too risky. The other thing is that Myers isn't part of the governor's inner circle, and had only been working for her for six months (his previous work was in other states). When Napolitano nomenclator Mario Diaz went over to Jim Pederson's campaign, that was an indication that she took an interest in the race. This move, however, just seems like a political operative moving from one job to another. But, this is an indication that both the leading campaigns are "professionalizing." (Giffords has also brought in a new communications director from out of state) As more money gets raised, there is more of a chance for campaigns to hire professional operatives from outside the circle of trusted local friends. This also happens as national interest goes up, check writers in other states start asking, "Who is working for you?" and they'd like to hear the name of someone they have heard of, or at least the name of someone who worked for someone they have heard of.|W|P|114977922438082885|W|P|Inside Baseball|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/09/2006 08:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Just an aside:

Giffords just earned the endorsement of the American Education Association. Add this to many unions, Sierra Club, police, and fire, and I am thinking she is in some pretty solid shape for this run. Broad support...progressive support...

So how is this relevant to Ted's post? The campaign shake-ups and insider ball that he speaks does lend talent to the campaign, but I am wondering where the milestone's are for the other candidates. It appears to me that the shake up is more related to the fact that Giffords is getting backing, money, and volunteers and the others just seem to be right were they were back in January.


Roger6/09/2006 02:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|I just called a Weiss supporter. Direct quote, "Ted needs to start dealing in reality. Maybe he should put his effort into campaigning instead of trying to spread more rumors on his blog. Isn't he running for office". :) Ted?

A simple fact check (like linking to Patty's contact page) would have told you Rhonda has always been her scheduler. She has never been her communications person. Weiss never had a communications director on board yet.

At least you got the part right that they are bringing Andrew on board.

Rhonda does remember interviewing you. She just told you she didn't because you were really inappropriate and she didn't want to re-live that, so it was easier to block it out.6/09/2006 02:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|I'm only kidding about that last part. I don't want to do the rumor thing like you all do. I was just attempting humor.6/09/2006 02:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|No "shakeup" Roger. Just a growing campaign. Latas is growing his too.

Ironic you all don't say it is a shakeup when Giffords adds staff.

By the way, is Finley still her co-chair? Someone emailed me that Finley just recently donated to Huffman. Is she jumping ship?6/09/2006 09:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I had the distinct impression that the other person was her comm. director until recently. NO Biggie though..you are right FedUP. Sure, all three campaigns are growing...I just don't see a whole lot of action out of Weiss and Latas...save for atttacks on Giffords. As for Giffords, I see more endorsements from groups and more contributions.

As an example, here is a very recent attack by a local attorney close to Weiss' campaign who sent this message out to the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association...a Louis Hollingsworth.

"Dear Listmates,

We need to help consumer-oriented congressional candidates like Bruce Braley of Iowa (thank you John Curtin), if we’re going to guard against what Bush and other insurance friendly/anti-consumer politicians are trying to do to patients across the country. I will be sending a check to Braley today. However, much closer to home we have a champion in Patty Weiss (AZ CD 8). Take a look at her positions in the attachments. I’ve been following her campaign closely and one thing I’ve learned about her is she’ll tell you exactly how she feels about all issues, regardless of her audience. I’ve not found this to be the case with other candidates. (I used to be a Gabrielle Giffords supporter but she has left consumer/patients high and dry on two occasions at the state level. Moreover, in a Commerce Committee vote, she cast the deciding vote against a bill which would have recovered money for the State from huge employers who have large numbers of employees on AHCCCS. Is it just a coincidence that she has taken money from Rip Wilson, Walmart’s lobbiest?) I know some of you are currently supporting different candidates, but I would encourage you go online and do your own independent research regarding candidate positions on issues affecting consumers/patients and our ability to effectively represent their rights. I suggest it is critical that we all get involved in supporting a candidate like Patty Weiss who will be on the side of consumers, not corporations and lobbiests.

Louis Hollingsworth"6/10/2006 06:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Roger,

That reads like an attack to you? If he called her an ugly stupid dirtbag, now that would be an attack. ;)

No, really. It sounds like he is just saying he used to support her, doesn't anymore, and why. As a trial lawyer, I am sure that vote had some personal impact on him which changed his position.

I don't agree with Weiss on a couple of her positions, but I will give her credit for sticking to her story. I haven't heard her waver. Giffords might do better with less advisors and just go with her instincts. When advisors got a hold of Gore his message was all muddled and the same thing happened with Kerry.

That letter you posted probably would have been more impactful if he had included links for his audience but I don't see it as an attack. It didn't get personal and stuck to facts. And does anyone even know this Louis person? I cannot imagine it has impact one way or another. Boy, I almost sound like I am defending Giffords camp now.

Why do you see it as an "attack"?

Maybe the lesson is we all need to watch our legislators a lot more closely and not just during election year.6/10/2006 06:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|On action in the camps, yes, Weiss camp has been quiet and they don't even have yard signs, t-shirts, etc. Bumper stickers is the only thing I have seen them pass out.

Giffords is piling up the money and endorsements. She sounds like she has a good ground operation and volunteers so I would agree she is the best positioned right now just from a strategic standpoint. Weiss campaign needs to get their sh*t together if they hope to be competitive against Giffords. I am just talking strategic here. They seem to be moving way too slowly on everything. Personally, I like Weiss better but I know that doesn't win elections.

I would disagree with Latas though. He might not have the money and endorsements but has a very active volunteer base (they have called me several times, several mailers) and has a pretty decent ground operation. He is the best in person out of the three. Very charismatic. I didn't like any of them as recently as a couple of weeks ago, but I have been getting out more and seeing them in different capacities.

I might just donate to the guy because I like his energy and want to see him stick it out a bit longer. At least until the end of the quarter and then see what he has to offer.

It is too bad candidates have to spend so much time raising money and looking for endorsements instead of getting out with the voters. The real debate and issues seem to get lost.6/11/2006 09:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|Amen brother,

Latas seems to be the only one addressing the issues full time. The others are chasing the $$. Unfortunately, this is "politics as usual" and that is why I back Latas. He wants to make the real change and not just the change someone plays with in their pockets.6/11/2006 07:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Agree with many of your points, Fedup.

I haven't seen yard signs, T-shirts, coffee mugs for any CD 8 candidate, although you can order Latas stuff through a link on his website. I like the doggie shirt.

I am seeing more bumper stickers, mostly Graf and Giffords, a few Latas, even fewer Weiss, and no Huffman.

Finley donates to both sides of the aisle and has for years. You can look her up specifically at www.opensecrets.org. Be sure to do last name first (screws me up every time). Her giving to Huffman would be consistent and doesn't mean a thing.

I would be interested in what others consider an "attack." I shared my thoughts at DataPort, and per that, this lawyer thing is an attack. There is more about Hollingsworth, SB1065, etc. at DataPort.

Anyone have an idea when the tv ads really start? I thought they would have begun by now.6/07/2006 09:49:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage has lost the vote in the Senate. Great, now this means that those liberals that run the federal courts and our state legislature will force me to marry a man.|W|P|114969918631195032|W|P|Heaven Forbid!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/07/2006 08:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|As a liberal, I can assure you Ted, I have no interest in making you marry a man. Just like I have no interest in forcing you to have an abortion if you do not want one.6/07/2006 10:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|Can we compromise? Split the difference, so to speak?

How about we force him to marry Ann Coulter?

At the very least, he should be able to teach her how to write coherently.

End (for now) wisea$$ attitude. :)6/07/2006 11:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mexilina|W|P|Hey, I don't care whom you marry, as long as I get invited (and you have a live band).

But Seriously, you know the Repubs are in trouble when they start pulling out the "gay marriage" card.6/08/2006 12:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|Exactly right, Mexilina.

During the campaign/election season, they would rather have the public debate be about this (and immigration!) than about minor issues like the war in Iraq (coming soon to Iran), corruption, record budget deficits, .... and so on.6/08/2006 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|The pull out the Gay Marriage card, unfortunately, because they know that many Democrats (unfortunately) fear taking a position on it. They hoped to use votes from yesterday against those who cast them, awaken their constituency, and they know...just know...that few will actually come out and defend LGBT people who might want to marry.

I really really really hope that I am wrong about what I just said. The arguments against gay marriage are ridiculous. Tradition, religion. In Mass. no church is forced to marry a gay couple, but churches who do wish to can. That sounds like freedom to me. And hell, the opponents of gay marriage keep saying that it will undermine marriage. My friends in committee same sex relationships have frankly enhanced my marriage by being great couple friends.

If anyone is interested in helping defeat the measure in Arizona, go to the Arizona Together website and donate or help.


Oh...and shame on Kyl for this Constitutional Amendment and shame on McCain who voted against it, but still supports the proposed amendment in Arizona.6/07/2006 06:42:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I heard a rumor about CD 8 from Phoenix. I always have a couple of questions when I hear from Phoenix about CD 8. First of all, could this person telling me find the Warren Ball Park if I dropped them off at the Lowell traffic circle? Second, is this so second hand by the time it has travelled up I-10, crawled back, then fallen on my lap that it lacks any resemblance to accuracy? The rumor I heard from Phoenix yesterday (no one down here seemed to have heard it) was that supporters of Jeff Latas were about to make a stink that there are Democratic district chairs supporting Gabrielle Giffords, thus violating the "rules" against "neutrality" (more on that one later). This rumor seems to be bunk for a couple of reasons. It turns out, there are no district chairs on Giffords's supporter list, although I did find the wife of one. I found none on Patty Weiss's list. There is one on Jeff Latas's list, District 26 Chair Juana Mase, however. I have my doubts that anyone that actually knows what is going on in Latas's campaign would try to raise this issue, given that his website lists several party activists along with their affiliations. For example, Latas's campaign manager, Steve Cody is listed with his title as the Secretary of District 29. It is the fact that he has attracted some party officials, who after all, are committed grass roots activists, that have given his campaign the juice that it has, despite his lack of strong fundraising. This also raises the rumored oath of neutrality that party officers take. Guess what: there isn't one. The only prohibition in the party's by-laws is against the Executive Committee taking a stand in a primary, presumably because this body speaks for the party. The by-laws do advise party officers to be careful with endorsements, however. Many do, for example a district chair usually stays neutral in a legislative race in his district. Former Pima County Democratic chair Paul Eckerstrom waited until he stepped aside as chairman before publicly declaring his support for Patty Weiss, but despite what people think, he was under no obligation to wait. (Eckerstrom may have also felt a bit burned by what happened in the city council race in 2005, where his support for Nina Trasoff (what is it with you and reporters, Paul?) was heavilly criticized.) After my brother was appointed to the legistlature, one activist actually told me that I was prohibited from helping him, unless I resigned as state party vice-chair. The fact that this was a person that didn't support my brother and didn't support me when I ran for vice-chair a few months before had nothing to do with it, right? Which brings up the issue with these sorts of endorsements: how you feel about their propriety depends on who they go to. When they are for your guy, it is an indication of community support and how serious your campaign is. When they are against your guy it is unfair, an indication that your rebellious campaign is being repressed by the Man. As Democrats, we always like to imagine ourselves being political guerrillas, wandering the hills, outremere renegades taking shots at the establishment. This even applies when the establishment is on our side. Feeling like we are rebels makes us all warm inside, and frankly, motivates us to knock on a few more doors and make a few more phone calls. One thing that was funny after Raúl Grijalva's victory in 2002 was the revisionist history from some of his supporters that somehow the state party was lined up against him. I was on staff for the state party that year, and I can tell you that the folks in the office up there were rooting for Grijalva (I can say that now), 'cept for one that thought that Jesús Romo was cute (I am not making that up). Heck, they needed him because of his incredible grass roots machine. We always have a need to feel like we are tearing down the establishment, whatever the facts say. There is also often a sour grapes aspect to the issue of endorsements. Back in 2000, State Democratic Chairman Mark Fleischer endorsed Sen. Bill Bradley for President. I was a Bradley supporter, and a Fleischer supporter, but in retrospect, this move was inadvisable. Many movers in the party criticized Fleischer for not remaining neutral in the presidential primary. However, these same people had only a few weeks before been pressuring Fleischer to endorse Vice President Al Gore. Something else that people don't consider: the money folks that form the "establishment" in both the party and the community down here are outside of the party structure. If tommorrow, Vince Rabago were to endorse Dwight Leister (don't worry, he never would) it wouldn't result in one dime of money swinging his way, and not one "big name" would reconsider their previous postion. There is an over-estimation of the power of some of these folks. They are often effective organizers, and can bring in volunteers, which is important, but that is it. The establishment money folks that support Giffords, Weiss, and also Latas, are supporting them regardless of what a party official says. Some campaigns spend an awful lot of time complaining about this, though. I haven't heard this complaint from Latas supporters, but I have heard this from the candidates outside of the top three, two of whom seem to spend an awful lot of time posting on blogs. Frankly, if a candidate loses, it isn't because some vice-chair turned the establishment against them.|W|P|114969186318112684|W|P|Um...Hold Off On That|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/07/2006 10:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|There is no formal prohibition against endorsements, as you make clear. And people can work for candidates with primary opposition (i.e. collecting signatures) regardless of party position.

I am an officer (though not the chair) of my county party. Since I occasionally comment on candidates, I am very careful to never discuss my party position on my blog so that it is very clear that my opinions are mine alone and not those of the state or county party (and whether I support a Democratic candidate or not in a primary, if I get a ballot signature petition then I will circulate it regardless of whether I endorse that candidate or not-- because getting those out is part of my duties in the position I'm in.)

That said, if I want to make endorsements, I have complete freedom to do so, and have done so, speaking strictly for myself (no party position noted on the endorsement).6/08/2006 07:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger DRP|W|P|Hope this rumor is bunk. Latas is a good candidate and should stick to running a good campaign to woo primary voters, not attack speculative support for Giffords.6/09/2006 06:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|The person being attacked here is Latas. Giffords and her supporters should stick to running a good campaign, not attack Latas based on rumors.6/09/2006 10:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Check my post...I was saying that the rumor is false, and I wasn't attacking Latas at all.

I have since found out a little more about this, and I found that the person making hay about this was a supporter of another candidate.6/05/2006 04:38:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This blog has come to be known in some quarters as "Gabby Central." Yes, I am supportive of Gabrielle Giffords, who has been a friend of mine for decades. Although I get a bit (well, more than a bit) preturbed by the untruths and vitriol thrown around on here by some supporters of other candidates, I actually like the candidates they support. Saturday, I attended an event put on by the Stonewall Democrats. The only congressional candidate to make it was Jeff Latas, although Gabrielle Giffords's sister Melissa attended. Latas gives good speech. He spoke with a very personal passion towards issues involving civil rights and the war in Iraq that I wish other candidates would be willing and capable of doing. He brought both issues back to his service in the Air Force, where he was obliged to protect this nation and its constitution. My trouble with him is with his lack of experience working on these issues, but he is an articulate spokesman on them. I get frustrated with some of his supporters because this man has an incredible story to tell, and I wish that they would help him tell it, instead of trying to tear other people down. I hope that if he loses this primary, he stays involved and runs for office later. Arizona needs more like him.|W|P|114955197511628523|W|P|In Praise of Jeff Latas|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/05/2006 06:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Perhaps that is always the mark of a worthy politician: that their supporters are generally less admirable than they are. Of course, the opposite is also true of the worst candidates: that their supporters are generally more decent people than you would expect from the candidate's example.6/05/2006 07:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger union guy|W|P|Every supporter of Gabby that I've talked to agrees that Latas is a genuine progressive and a great candidate. I sincerely hope that he considers a run for the state legislature or some other office that he can win and use as a stepping stone to continue to move up.6/05/2006 08:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|"his lack of experience working on these issues"

20-plus years is not enough?

Jeff Latas has defended the Constitution with his life for over 20 years. He has several years experience in Washington working with Congress. He has many years experience working for educational issues.

I'm not sure what you mean about his supporters not telling his story or about them tearing down other candidates. I think they've done a great job of staying on message. I'm on his mailing list, and his supporters are very careful to instruct people on the list to be positive and remain on message.

Yes, there may be people who realize that Jeff Latas is the best candidate who may not be read in on the rules of the campaign, but that certainly in no way detracts from this incredible candidate.

I think it reflects poorly on other candidates whose supporters can only complain that anyone who does not praise their candidate somehow reflects poorly on Jeff Latas.

I sincerely hope that he wins this Congressional seat for which he is so well qualified. I'm hearing lots of good things about him.6/05/2006 08:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger vetdem|W|P|blue in az,

have you heard of george tuttle. this is a latas supporter that has a blog that is dedicated to negatives about giffords. his supporters are well know for their negativism.6/05/2006 09:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Didn't you support another Career Military Officer by the name of General Clark Tedski? Did he hold elected office that encouraged you to support and work for him over more legislative experienced candidates say like Kerry, Dean Etc.?6/05/2006 10:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski, that is a great picture of Jeff. He looks very comfortable hiding out in his gated enclave up in Oro Valley.

Union Guy, Jeff might make a fine candidate for the state legislature but he has a little problem. He lives in 26. A stray dog running as a Republican would beat a good Democratic candidate in that district.6/05/2006 10:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|I have heard of George Tuttle, but I don't know him. I don't see him listed on Jeff Latas's Supporters page, so it's unlikely that he works for the campaign.

"hiding out in his gated enclave up in Oro Valley"

Wow. That sounds pretty negative. And it doesn't seem to have anything to do with anyone's qualifications for office.

Everyone knows that Jeff Latas is a self-made man and has earned every bit of success in his life.

I agree with the Wes Clark comment, though. Also, it seems like Verkamp would be a better candidate than Pederson by Tedski's standards.6/06/2006 04:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger vetdem|W|P|This is important!

Regarding the Wes Clark Comment:

Wesley Clark was a successful 4 Star General, an O-10. The commander of NATO. All due respect to Latas, but he retired as a Lt. Col., an O-5. The promotion rate to Colonel (O-6) is 50%. That means that Latas was ranked and regarded in the bottom 50% of all Lt. Col's in the USAF. Not a stellar performer. We need to be sending our best and brightest to Congress!

Again, I applaud Latas' service but he's a proven mediocre military officer. He's no Wesley Clark!6/06/2006 05:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I don't have an issue with Jeff at all as a person or candidate. I just believe that Gabby is more experienced as well and it has shown in her campaign. Military service is nothing but honorable and no doubt he has "experience", but legislative experience is vastly different. It means that you don't get what you want most of the time, you don't have people giving you orders, and you can't give orders. You have to build coalitions, it means committee work, it means you have to give and take sometimes to get things done, and it means standing up for what you believe against a vast majority that you can't influence.

I don't doubt that Jeff COULD do these things...or that even Patty could. However, Giffords HAS done this for years as a house rep. and then as a State Senator. She has the experience and I would not be willing to take a gamble on Jeff or Patty for this reason.6/06/2006 06:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|"mediocre military officer"

Once again, Gabby supporters being negative.

Jeff Latas was awarded the Distinguised Flying Cross. What is the percentage of officers who earn that?

He chose to retire from the Air Force and earn his "O-6" rank as an airline Captain: a very competitive career field, and a very competitive promotion that he accomplished very quickly.

Jeff Latas has achieved the highest military rank of any candidate in this race. Trying to attack him on his military record reflects very poorly on Gabby supporters.

Kralmajales is doing a much better job staying positive, although I do still disagree with the conclusion that Gabby's experience is either qualitatively or quantitatively better than Col. Latas's. Latas has worked in Washington, with Congress, and has learned very well that you don't always get what you want. Ask him about depleted uranium and some of the programs on the table for Iran. He's VERY impressive, very experienced, and very knowledgeable in ways that the other candidates can't touch.

But I respect your right to think that state-level experience is more important to you, Kralmajales. :-)6/06/2006 08:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|VETDEM--Jeff's running for U.S. Congress--NOT PRESIDENT, so your comparison doesn't make sense.

"best and brightest" remark. Latas has a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering--if you knew anything about engineering, you would know that the Aerospace/Mechanical engineering curriculum is VERY demanding [much harder than the civil engineering curriculum which I completed]. Also, Jeff has a Masters in Public Administration (WITH HONORS). The MPA is basically the business degree for those working in government. Have you read Jeff's bio--seen re all of the medals he received while in the Air Force?

MICHAEL--I surely hope that the worthy politicians are more admirable than their supporters!

Re running in LD 26--The ridiculously low salary for state reps results in mainly the following being able be state reps--

--the well-off
--business owners who don't need to work full-time
--those with well-off spouses
--those with jobs which can be done part-time
--the homeless or those who can share an apartment/house with a friend

It is difficult to support even one person on that salary!

KRAMAJALES--Jeff worked in the Pentagon for four years--federal government experience.

I hope you realize that only a very small number of ANY candidates' supporters are bloggging.6/06/2006 09:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Good to see Blue in Az and CC Burro back...

I don't disagree that working in the Pentagon is federal govt. experience or experience in any case, but it is qualitatively and quantitatively different than assessing issues, hearing from constituents, running around and away from lobbyists, and frankly knowing the district, its people, and its needs.

Some can certainly say that Patty knows the district and its people from covering it. Giffords knows at least a portion of the district very well by representing it and knows the rest by having to work with other legislators on the problems of Southern Arizona (which are not foreign to her district in Tucson).

Best to all...and yes...Gretchen...only a small set of supporters or detractors are bloggers...although Ted's blog has quite a reach and so do some of the others.


Roger6/06/2006 09:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|So did Latas meet a 0-6 board? I'm a vet and not all retiring 0-5's meet this board and unless you, Vetdem, were on this board you have no idea how he would have ranked.

Thought you were a veteran? Take a look here and get some education on when to expect promotion; http://usmilitary.about.com/od/promotions/l/blofficerprom.htm.

I see that most get an opportunity to meet a 0-6 board at 22 years, Latas retired in his 20th year. Also, I see that in the USAF, Lt Col is only 14.9% of the force structure, 13.4% of the total DoD uniformed force structure. I’d say is was very successful and was in the upper levels of public service. I know many retired officers that would have loved to have made the rank of Lt Col, don’t you?

Sounds more like penis envy to me. It also sounds like a Swift Boat Attack that has no credibility.

Just like a republican, trying this tactic of belittling someone’s military career. Why don't you ask if he was ever passed over? You won't because you know the answer and it wouldn't play well in your cheap swift boat attack.6/06/2006 10:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|Oh, I made a mistake in my last comment!

The percentage of 14.9% and 13.4% were the percentage of commissioned officers that are Lt. Cols. This really puts him in that highest level of military service, maybe the top 5%. I think that makes him better then your slimy attempt of painting him a failure.

There is no doubt after comparing Lt Col Latas to the other candidates in this race, who is most qualified and who can beat any of the repugs. Jeff Latas is by far the best candidate in the race on either side of the political realm. He has more experience across the board; military, federal, a father, married for over a quarter century, dealt with major medical issues in his family, was a union kid and still works. His son not only just finished a cord blood transplant but is also a veteran. He and his kids are public school educated and he was a PTA president and a founding member of Communities in School in North Carolina. He also put himself through schoolAnd Vetdem, you think he is lackluster?

He has done more in this race with very little. This means to me that he is a very good leader and very efficient, someone I would want as my Congressman. You must be jealous to even consider this cheap attack and you should be ashamed for this "Lackluster" attempt to bring Jeff Latas down!

It makes your argument for your candidate look “desperate.”6/06/2006 02:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|hahahah emersome...the attacks have been coming from ya'll all spring.

I think it is going to get pretty crazy in the next few months. We might all need to get beer sometime and try to let bygones be whatever bygones are after this one.

So,any attack VetDem or any of us now would make right now...is more than fair game...if based in fact. I am still trying to stay as positive as I can. VetDem is normally quite positive when she/he reacts to criticism of Gabby. We all get a little tiffy sometimes though.6/06/2006 03:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger vetdem|W|P|The USAF selection board for O-6 occurs before the 20 year point. So what I said stands. And being a Jet Blue Captain is not equivalent to being an Air Force Colonel. But you're right about being negative. I should take the higher ground and apologize to Latas about pointing out that he didn't get selected for O-6. There is of course the possibility that he was selected and chose to retire instead at O-5. That would mean that he wasn't in the bottom 50% of all Lt. Col's. Very possible. It would be interesting to know.6/06/2006 05:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|You are wrong, again. Not all Lt Cols meet a board before 20. So what I say, stands!

Do you care to quote your source on when the 0-5s meet a 0-6 board?6/06/2006 07:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger vetdem|W|P|Personal experience. I also don't know any O-5s (and I know a lot of them) that have ever left active duty when they had the opportunity to promote to O-6. This may be a rare case but I'm skeptical.

Like I said in an earlier post it wasn't a good idea to address Latas' service. The guy served his country honorably and that is important. What is difficult for me is to read the negative attacks on the other candidates by the Latas supporters and then make him out to be this great and experienced leader.

His military experience is no more relevant than Alex's (who spent much less time in the military), or Francine's experience in DC.

There is a candidate in this race that has relevant experience in a legislative body and can hit the ground running. I hope she's our candidate in the fall.

If not then I'll completely support whoever comes out on top in the primary.

I ask all of you to do the same.6/06/2006 08:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Gretchen's remarks about the ludicrous salaries are "spot on" and point to a huge issue.

Frankly, I think the "negatives" being fired at all of the candidates (well, certainly the three most viable) are rather petty. Based on the info I have, not tons but not trivial either, I like and respect all three. Maybe I am being fooled (it does happen--my ex did a fine job), but I think all three are honorable human beings. I am 100% behind one of them on September 13th.

I so much want the democrat to win that for me it is most about 1) who will be strongest in the general, and then 2) who would do the best job in Washington.

Most of the negatives I see don't have much to do with either. I certainly don't connect with remarks like the "hiding out in Oro Valley." What? Some of the stuff launched against Giffords seems like Twilight Zone.

And, yes, completely concur about small number of bloggers.

Totally off topic, but anyone know where Graf went? His website still says HQ at 5739 Speedway. That place is abandoned and available.6/06/2006 09:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Try 5521 E. Speedway

(Oh, sorry about the whole off-topic thing.)6/06/2006 10:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|Well, don't know your record, Vetdem, but 22 years is the on time board. An on time 0-5 will meet the below the zone board, maybe, as soon as the 19 year point. I'm sure Latas had his papers in before that. (personal and from my earlier comment and link)

And so what, he did his time and he got out. I'm glad he is running and he is the best candidate in this race.6/06/2006 11:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Does anyone know if Mike Hellon intends to still stay in the race? Any polling data for the Rs?6/07/2006 05:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Totally hearsay stuff here CCBurro, but I met an ardent Hellon supporter in Phx. She was very optimistic and quite mad at Jim Click and the rest who have been trying to puff Huffman and get him out.

Doesn't mean he won't drop out of course.

The interesting thing will be how they will handle Randy Graf. I am sure they are going to attack him in ads as being extreme on immigration, but won't that play to the anti-immigration base...and strengthen him? Probably will be done by another Click financed "Committee to Rid Southern Arizona of Randy Graf."6/07/2006 05:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|More hearsay but it looks like all 5 Republican for CD 8 candidates will file. Not sure if they all will stay in to the end but I think Hellon will. He and his supporters are taking the race seriously.

If you think about it, if any of the top 3 candidates stumble or make a big mistake the race could be wide open.

Polling data for the R’s? Yeah, they found the top 3 issues for the primary are the border, the border, and the border.6/07/2006 08:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|hahaha Phx Kid is right, right, right (no pun intended).

What is going to be fun is seeing how well Huffman and Hellon stack up on that issue vis-a-vis Mr. Graf. As I said before, Graf was an illegal "hata" before it was cool.

I am curious to see how the recent votes of Huffman look on this issue. See if he is voting more conservative now on the border before Graf hands it to him.6/07/2006 10:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|Swiftboat vetdem,

You've completely dicredited yourself with your baseless, petty attack. By your logic, Gabby has no leadership skills because she has you as a supporter. And Verkamp should be our choice for Senate because of his legislative experience.6/07/2006 08:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|My admittedly limited radar has heard that serious money will be spent telling republicans that a September vote for Graf is a November vote for a democrat, and the push will be for Huffman.

Sorry again, but 5521 E. Speedway is ABC Radiator. They pretty much agreed that Graf is extreme and Huffman is probably ok, but that Giffords is way more attractive and will make the news "funner to watch."

Graf has left the building.6/08/2006 10:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|Vetdem,

It's not just the Latas supporters that are throwing the mud, you seem to have some caked on dirt on your paws, too.

As a matter of fact, your one of the worst at making fiction in this race, just like those who brought down McCain in SC, Max Cleland and John Kerry. Your no better then those slime balls.6/11/2006 07:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Just for sake of completeness, 5521 Speedway is correct for Graf. He had no signage up the other day.

Those in need of radiator repair who wish to learn more about Graf are now in a position to multitask.6/05/2006 07:21:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, apparently the Republicans would have liked to have done more on immigration over the last six years, but they couldn't. Despite being in total control of the federal government for most of George Bush's two terms, and getting just about all they want in other areas, they haven't been able to do anything about fully staffing the Border Patrol. It's because of Bill Clinton. That's right, despite his being out of office and his party having minority status, it's his legacy that made it impossible for Jon Kyl and his Republican friends to do a darned thing about it. These poor guys, I guess they can't do anything right. Here is Jon Kyl on Phoenix area KFYI radio last week:
Well, Bill Clinton did, in fact, impede a lot of progress. He had a person working for him as head of INS, whose name is Doris Meissner, who drug her feet throughout the entire time that we were trying to get more people on the border. And that's why it took seven years instead of five years, but we finally got the number of Border Patrol (agents) doubled. But, yeah, he wanted to take 'a breather' -- I think that was his phrase -- he said 'it's time to take a breather on adding more Border Patrol.' And we said, no, it's not time to take a breather, it's time to accelerate, to increase the number of Border Patrol. So you had a lot of people in Congress then that were at least forcing the issue, but because he and his head of the INS were dragging their feet, it took longer than it should have.
It's ridiculous enough for Kyl to blame the Clinton administration, when he and the Republican congress have failed to hire even a fraction of the agents suggested by the 9/11 Commission a few years ago. But, as it turns out, that the Clinton administration went on what can only be called a hiring binge if you compare it to what has happened in the past few years when we have been supposedly more "security conscious." (It looks like Kyl tries to have it both ways, taking credit for the increase under Clinton. If he could get an increase under Clinton, why can't he get one under Bush?) Even the conservative Washington Times, no friend of Bill Clinton or any Democrat for that matter, last week ran a story entitled "Arrest of Illegals Falls Off Clinton Pace." No equivocation there. They pointed out:
Although Mr. Bush last week said his administration has caught and returned 6 million illegal aliens, that's actually a drop from any five-year period during Mr. Clinton's administration, the briefing says.
So, the Republican congress has refused to allocate the money to hire and train the necessary number of agents, arrests have fallen off since Bush came into office. But, hey, gotta blame someone, so it's all Bill Clinton's fault.|W|P|114951845484338860|W|P|Jon Kyl: It's all Bill Clinton's Fault|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/05/2006 12:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Does this “hold those currently in office responsible” policy apply to Janet? I sure hope it does. Her “it’s not my issue” excuse on the border is pretty lame.

During her time in office drug trafficking and undocumented entrants crossing the border have cost the state a lot of money. That makes it her responsibility as the Chief Executive of Arizona to lead on fixing this issue.

A veto is not leadership!6/05/2006 01:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I suppose if Janet had been working as part of a government entirely under the control of her party, I guess the metaphor would follow. Kyl is part of a strong legislative majority that has gotten its way on most issues, so it is absolutely ridiculous to blame someone that has been out of office for six years.6/05/2006 02:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Yeah kid, it's totally her fault for not showing leadership on this issue.

After all, if she had just proposed a plan to curb illegal immigration, the GOP "leadership" in the State Legislature would happily have gone along with whatever she wanted to do.

'Cuz they're all warm and fuzzy like that. They're just itching to enact whatever she proposes.6/05/2006 09:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger DRP|W|P|Clinton was mostly lame, but Kyl is an ultraright lunatic who must be booted this fall.

Our 'get tough' election year Gov. called for Nat. Guard on the border, and now we have more and more contributing to a non-solution of militarization.6/05/2006 10:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|It is a governor’s job to work with the legislature she has not the one she dreams about. Maybe if she had not poisoned the well last year with the budget fiasco they would be able to work together and reach a solution. True leaders find a way to make it happen.6/06/2006 05:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Jon Kyl is indeed extremist. He has the incumbency advantage, so he will be hard to beat, but very little else is in his favor.

Pederson at least looks reasonable and I think he will to the voters as the facts come out about Kyl.6/06/2006 09:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger azh2oskier|W|P|Facts come out about Kyl? He's been a public figure for 20 years! People know his record. They should be more worried about Pederson's record. He's the one to worry about...A Dem developer? Sounds suspicious. And how can Arizonans trust him when he's funding nearly all his campaign? Where are all his supporters?6/06/2006 09:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger azh2oskier|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.6/06/2006 09:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well PhxKid, she did finagle a budget surplus and fund education, so I guess she did manage to do some leading...6/06/2006 10:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|The hard working residents of Arizona produced the budget surplus by paying their taxes. Janet would spend, sorry the “invest”, every penny of the surplus on early childhood day-care, sorry “kindergarten”, if she could.

Fund education… But to what end? I checked the AIMS scores for Spring 2005, 10th grade. In Phoenix Union 39% of the kids at North H.S. failed the math portion. How about 36% at Coronado in Scottsdale District? In the Tucson area an astounding 54% of 10th graders at Cholla failed the AIMS math portion. If I were Janet I would not brag about what has happened during my time in office.6/07/2006 01:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Susan's brother|W|P|kid, you're not such a hot student of history. If the R legislatures of AZ present and past had decided to actually fund public ed, our students would be doing better. Check your facts; it's the legislature that ultimately passes the budget... and prioritizes much of the discretionary spending.6/07/2006 06:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This state spends plenty of money on education already. Looks like we are not getting much in return at some locations.

Any chance the solution is not more money but to try a different approach?6/02/2006 07:08:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|There are no politicians in this country that get the unquestioned praise from the national media that Arnold Schwarzenegger gets. A typical interview with him makes the sniveling adoration that Chris Matthews gives to John McCain look like the trash-talk thrown around by boxers at a pre-bout weigh in, or at least like journalism. The low point of this for me was during the recall election, when Katie Couric was interviewing a woman who had accused Schwarzenegger of groping her. Couric, in what seemed to be an attempt to discredit the woman, asked her "Are you someone who doesn't support Schwarzenegger in this election?" Well, duh. My answer would have been, "Well, Katie, I only vote for candidates who sexually assault me." One example of this was yesterday's edition of Scarborough Country. I really don't like Joe Scarborough, never have. His self-satisfied-know-it-all demeanor represents every thing I don't like about the flotsam that got washed in to our nation's capital in the 1994 election. I only caught the introduction to Scarborough's program, but I managed to read the transcript. Scarborough was making an issue of Schwarzenegger's call up of the national guard for border duty in California. Scarborough said in his introduction:
But while the president keeps pushing amnesty, the Governator is sending troops to the Mexican border.
I thought this was a bit funny, representing Schwarzenegger's call-out of the guard as somehow a contrast with Bush's policy. Considering that it was precisely what Bush himself had called for, I'm not sure that this makes him that much of a rebel. Later in the show, Scarborough said:
Also today, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered 1,000 troops to the Mexican border, ending a showdown with the White House.
This bit, along with the earlier quote, implies that Schwarzenegger had been pushing for the use of the guard, which is precisely what didn't happen. Schwarzenegger himself had objected to the use of the guard, which he regarded as overstretched and ill prepared for this sort of duty, and he demanded that the federal government pick up the cost. The other funny thing is that Scarborough acts as though Schwarzenegger is opposed to broader aims of Bush administration immigration policy. His own statements on immigration call for enforcement, comprehensive reform of current law, and no "amnesty," a word I put in quotes because the meaning of it has become rather pliable among Republicans lately (Witness: Jon Kyl's new ads). He even brags about working with Diane Feinstein. This is a far cry from his open support for the Minutemen a few months back, perhaps he realized that an Austrian overstaying a work visa is just as illegal as a campesino hopping the fence near Sasabe. I don't know why Scarborough would try to make it look like Schwarzenegger agrees with him, he doesn't even do this with the president. Maybe Scarborough has stars in his eyes for the man, and feels the need to paint himself as in agreement with him even though it is so obvious that Schwarzenegger is solidly in the other camp from him on this one. Or maybe he doesn't want to tell his viewers that he actually disagrees with someone they consider a hero. Heck, I don't know. Of course, the silliest thing is that Scarborough is heaping praise on Schwarzenegger for doing exactly what Gov. Napolitano had done the same day. I'm sure that Scarborough will be talking up Janet too, right?|W|P|114930366206149255|W|P|Gov. Schwarzenegger is a Bold-Take-Charge-Man-of-the-People-Rebel, by Doing Exactly What Gov. Napolitano is Doing|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/02/2006 09:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger DRP|W|P|Yes, and Gov. Janet is such a 'girly man'.6/02/2006 10:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Publius|W|P|It’s sad though that the governors of these Border States have to do what the President will not. With over 50,000 illegal immigrants in the California prison system alone for violent crimes, Schwarzenegger has to deal first hand with the problem while the Senate only tries to make it worse.6/03/2006 06:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Um, I don't think you read my post. Schwarzenegger is doing no more that what Bush was asking, that was my point.6/02/2006 06:50:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A response from Gabrielle Giffords to last week's "Real Democrats for Real Mudslinging" letter hit our mailboxes yesterday. She refutes the same points that I refuted earlier, which will probably lead to more allegations from supporters of other candidates that I am a paid shill for her campaign. I ought to call her and demand a check, I guess. But, she brings up a point that I neglected in my response: her support of the Clean Elections system. One of the allegations made in the "Real Democrats..." letter was that Giffords refused Clean Elections money in her races for state legislature. Truth to tell, I would have rather she had run as a "Clean" candidate as well. But, she was also someone who was very supportive of the system in the legislature, where she helped fight off attempts to defund and weaken the system. Why is merely taking the money a show of support? I ask this because I was involved in the campaign two years ago to fight off an attempt to gut the system. For those who don't remember, there was an attempt by group of businessmen, including Jim Click, to push an initiative to defund the Clean Elections system. The comedy came when it turned out that the initiative was illegal, and all those millions went down the drain. Brings a tear to the eye, don't it? I helped out with a few "house parties" and was in touch with the folks running the campaign down here. One frustration that I had was that some candidates and office holders that took Clean Elections money were nowhere to be found when the time came to defend the system. Heck, just look at who it is in the legislature that tries to knock the legs out from Clean Elections; it seems to mostly be folks who took Clean Elections money. One of the most prominent of these is Rick Murphy, who hapilly took Clean Elections money when he ran for election, but apparently doesn't want anyone else to. Interestingly, Murphy's bill was supported by Judy Burges, Laura Knaperek and Jerry Weiers, who are happily taking Clean Elections money this year. At least Murphy isn't taking the "corrupt" (his word) money this time. On the other hand, there were folks like John Loredo, who didn't take Clean Elections money, but were very supportive and helped the campaign to save the system. Phil Lopes was very supportive as well, even though he was ineligible to participate in Clean Elections due to his lack of an opponent. I can also point out that Giffords's opponents never have taken Clean Elections money either. Yes, that would be silly, but no sillier than not looking at what she has actually done to support the system.|W|P|114925968671320316|W|P|Just Because You Take Clean Elections Money...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/02/2006 12:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|What pisses me off about Gabby's campaigning in 02 and 04 was that she had the tamarity to show up at the clean elections forums in each the primary and general each time and take a place on the podium.

I thought it was sleazy then and still think so today.6/02/2006 12:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|I seem to recall, when she first ran for office, she initially considered running under clean elections, but opted not to because several of her opponents already indicated they were not running under clean elections, and she felt to be competitive she could not either.

I am pretty sure she's always favored clean elections _if_ they were mandated -- i.e., everyone was limited, no fund-raising allowed.6/02/2006 01:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger union guy|W|P|George,

This is from section 16-956 A2 of the Clean Elections Act passed by Arizona voters:

"The (Clean Elections) commission shall invite and permit nonparticipating candidates to participate in debates."

Gabby was invited to participate in each of the Clean Elections debates by law.6/02/2006 03:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Union Guy, I know the law. I still feel it was sleazy. I can have an opinion, can't I? Oh yeah, if it doesn't coincide with what the Gabbots say then it really doesn't count.6/03/2006 12:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|Anyone who doesn't participate in clean elections doesn't support it, plain and simple!6/03/2006 01:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Thanks for clarifying that boohoo, glad that question has been definitively resolved by an expert!

By the way, what are the Latas and Weiss positions on clean elections? I didn't see anything on either of their web sites.6/04/2006 01:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|Maybe you should go listen to them. They are both campaigning hard for a clean federal elections program.

Glad you pointed out that Miss Giffords wasn't competitive in her previous election under clean elections. She sure wasn't when she was a repug and felt she could win in a primary, hence she switched teams.6/05/2006 12:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|TEDSKI--

Why did Giffords choose to not use Arizona's Clean Elections public funding in any of her campaigns?6/06/2006 12:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|cc buro...

She chose not to use clean elections money because she was too busy getting her fundraising base for her opportunistic congressional run she knew was coming. How could she fund raise like she has if she hadn’t spent the last 5 years working a fundraising base? She would have not had as much success fundraising for her congressional run had she not already hit up these same donors in years past for campaign contributions bypassing the clean elections.6/06/2006 01:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger vetdem|W|P|boohoo,

she switched to the team in the minority in her district. she switched parties because of her positions and values. if it was just about winning she'd be campaigning as a republican. they're the majority of the electorate.