7/31/2006 11:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Steve Leal, that Steve Leal. He's just like the Hezbollah, you know? Well, that's the impression one would get from a series of "Something to Consider..." ads being run by local developer Bruce Ash. The ad tries to draw comparisons between innocents being killed in Middle East violence to the good people of Tucson being denied the right to work for low wages and no benefits at Wal-Mart. Yeah, I don't quite get the comparison either. What's worse, in an interview, Ash took things further by saying that just as Hezbollah is a proxy for Iranian Mullahs, Leal is a proxy for the UFCW. Nice to know that Ash has such a high opinion of unionized clerks and stockers. He'd better look for non-union stores from now on if he wants to avoid dirty looks at the checkout lanes. This isn't the first pro-Wal-Mart ad campaign that drew such offensive paralells. Some of us remember the campaign up in Flagstaff, where Wal-Mart compared the UFCW and neighborhood activists to Nazis. By far the silliest aspect of this whole thing is the portrayal of Wal-Mart, a company that makes billions of dollars and is a world-wide player, as some sort of defenseless victim of the big bad unions. Give me a break. Ash had a similar negative campaign (run through a committee called "Independent People Like You") in the 2003 elections against former Mayor Tom Volgy, who was making a bid for his old seat, and Councilmember José Ibarra. The business community wanted Mayor Bob Walkup to win re-election, which narrowly happened, but some openly wonder if Ash's negative campaign is what kept Walkup under 50% of the vote. Some of them are concerned that tactics such as this will make it harder to find compromises on projects in the future, especially given the more liberal direction of the present council. In his ad, by the way, Ash asks people to call Leal's office to tell him to "stand-up to the unions." Leal's office number is 791-4231, and his e-mail is steve.leal@tucsonaz.gov. Call him or e-mail him to tell him to keep up the good work and stand with working people. NB - If you want to hear the ad, the Arizona Daily Star has it here.|W|P|115437428764045634|W|P|Plus, I Know That Leal Prefers Sushi to Hummus Any Day of the Week|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/31/2006 03:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|One of the biggest scandals is how low Wal-Mart pays its employees, and then charges such high premiums for medical coverage that even where there is supposedly coverage, there isn't because the employees opt out.

I really admired what the Chicago city council did last week and ignored the threats that Wal-Mart would leave Chicago if they had to pay a living wage (hopefully Mayor Daley will sign it). Considering how hard it is to keep Wal-Mart out of some communities, maybe that will be the best way to do it-- let them come, but pass Chicago-style living wage ordinances.

Of course, if Mr. Ash is so much comparing Wal-Mart with the Lebanese, perhaps someone should ask him if they have any contracts to buy clothes from sweatshops in Lebanon.8/01/2006 12:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mimulus|W|P|Another scandal is how Ash treats tenants at his three Section 8 buildings in Tucson. (Shadow Pines, Menlo Park and Mayfair Manor)

He has gotten his hand slapped a couple of times for ripping them off with illegal late fees and telling tenants they use the stove or shower too much and charging them to make capital repairs to the units.7/29/2006 02:55:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I know that all of you are on pins and needles about what the national media will no doubt soon be calling "re-direct-gate." Well, my vast network of operatives has found out some new information to blow the lid off of this burgeoning scandal, which will no doubt shake the foundations of Arizona politics as no event has since the Bascom Affair. It turns out that the domain name goldwater4governor.com was not registered by any nefarious rogue hired by Janet Napolitano's campaign, but instead someone registered it through a Scottsdale firm called Domains By Proxy, and this person was apparently "cybersquatting" and hoping to sell the domain name back to the Don Goldwater campaign. I guess that ruins the whole story for Nowicki, Patterson and crew. But here is something they can follow up on: six domain names that are permutations of the words "Jim Pederson" have been registered to a firm calling itself Michael Enterprises, owned by a guy named Michael Davenport, a registered Republican in Scottsdale. For now, most of these addresses lead to a simple site just linking some articles about Pederson's campaign. I expect Nowicki and Patterson to be checking on pedersonforsenate.org or jimpederson.net to see what gets done with those addresses, and will accuse Kyl's campaign of Nixonian dirty tricks when something weird happens. Also, by the way, some guy named George Bell in Apache Junction has registered the name janetnapolitano.com. That site, in fact, is an anti-Napolitano site run by the anti-immigrant group American Patrol. What, no outrage about the "fraud" on that one, guys?|W|P|115421170477443569|W|P|More Twists and Turns in the Political Crime of the Century!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/31/2006 12:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Obviously, this is a 'cybersquatter' who pays scant attention to the real news.

Remember that Don Goldwater is still desperately stumping for $5 bills so he can qualify for public financing, and a recent article had he, Gary Tupper and Mike Harris with $11,000 cash on hand combined.

The idea that the Don Goldwater campaign could actually pay this guy for a domain name is ridiculous. He's obviously confusing the Goldwater campaign with a campaign that has some money.7/31/2006 05:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|ouch Eli. :D7/28/2006 11:58:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Dan Nowicki and Greg Patterson may have caught Janet Napolitano's campaign doing something horribly underhanded that may be the single worst abuse of the democratic process since the death of Niccolò di dei Machiavelli. Let's say instead of typing in goldwater4governor.org, you have a sudden spasm and type in dongoldwater.org. You are then presented with, of all things, Napolitano's home page. Shocking. Will these atrocities ever stop? Who will rid us of this accursed Governor? This is definitely "mountain out of a molehill" territory. Maybe even Kilimanjaro out of an anthill. On the scale of political dirty tricks, 1 being sending unordered pizzas to your opponent's headquarters and 10 being, I dunno, being actively engaged in voter supression, this rates about .368, which is the reciprocal of the natural base e. If you were to look up Don Goldwater in Google you will find his website address, goldwater4governor.org. The website on his literature is goldwater4governor.org. The web address on Politics1 is goldwater4governor.org. I'm assuming that most people poking around for the website will be able to find it at the right address. I'm not sure what actual damage, aside from irritating a few poor typists looking for Goldwater's page, this actually does. If someone used one of these domain names to put up a fraudulent Goldwater page, I would see the gripe. This sort of thing is why many campaigns reserve several doman names. You can check out the web page of Patty Weiss, for example at patty2006.com or pattyweiss.com. Goldwater could have obviated this problem by reserving a couple of other domain names, at least by reserving the .com and .org versions of the name. In his usual hyperbole (yeah, it's our job as bloggers), Patterson counts this as one of the worst dirty tricks in Arizona political history. He also says something that is just plain silly:
That's a pretty sophisticated and expensive practical joke.
This person, who may not even be affiliated with Napolitano's campaign, did not need a set of degrees from MIT to pull this off, or even a BA from ASU. GoDaddy.com will reserve a domain name and set you up for around $25 bucks. After that, setting up a "re-direct" is pretty easy, easier than actually setting up a website. Frankly, the Republicans in this state, who after all keep Nathan Sproul employed, have a lot of nerve accusing Napolitano of "dirty tricks." NB - Patterson compares Napolitano with Richard Nixon. Here's something I don't get. Republicans will tell me that Nixon was a great president and that what he did was no big deal, but then in the next breath tell me that whatever made up scandal they find out about a Democrat makes them "as bad as Nixon." Which is it, guys? Also, Patterson complains that the media "let this slide." I would buy that one if he didn't learn about it from, and link it to, an article on the Arizona Republic's website. CORRECTION: In the original post, I refered to e as the natural logarithm. It is actually the natural base.|W|P|115411744271584097|W|P|Oh, Come On!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/28/2006 01:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski,

I agree it is not a big issue, except with clean elections it might be.

Does it constitute an in kind contribution? The redirect does result in additional exposure for Janet. Is the person behind this required under CCEC rules to disclose? Maybe.

Clean elections is checking in to every other nickel and dime issue in the state why not this one as well.7/28/2006 03:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Ten bucks a year for a domain. Another -- MAYBE 15 to register it privately.

Sounds to me like Patterson had a little too much caffeine before he wrote that post.

I love that in the one before he critize the Republic for piling on Munsil and Montgomery for their "Janet and Terry have created these serial killers" press conference. The one where they were asked why they weren't attacking Arpaio and Maricopa County Attorney Thomas for the same thing - especially since it was their jurisdiction.

A friend who saw the video of the event said Montgomery's answer was something like "well, I'm not running against them".7/28/2006 03:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|I don't think it's all that big an issue either, but I am curious.

Who really set this up? It's sort of a ham-handed move, and while many words have been used to describe the Governor (particularly by Republicans) 'ham-handed' isn't on the list.

In fact, it reeks of a two-fer dirty trick - Goldwater gets zinged, and Governor Napolitano gets blamed.7/28/2006 03:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|cpmaz,
you thinking Munsil, Tupper or Harris? Kinda makes sense to me.

What reason would someone in Janet's campaign want to tie her to Goldwater? A regular Joe looking into Goldwater to decide if he wants to vote for Donnie is going to be a Republican, most likely (since we're still pre-primary). So what good would it do to redirect someone who is probably an "Anybody But Janet" voter to Janet's site? It doesn't help her because by surfing the net, he's already looking for an alternative to the incumbent.

It does, however, help the others in the GOP primary to lump Janet with her former Admin Dept party planner.

But who amongst the GOP candidates is savvy in the ways of the world wide web? Which of these fine fellas has shown mad skillz in utilizing this new technology to reach out to voters????

What a mystery!7/28/2006 05:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Well, a quick whois lookup shows the dongoldwater.org domain was registered July 10 through GoDaddy.

Registrant information is given as:

Domains by Proxy, Inc.
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Of course, this could be anyone registeringthe domain anonymously. I suppose if someone is feeling motivated, they could call the Domains By Proxy number and see if they could dig up more info.7/28/2006 07:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chris|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.7/28/2006 07:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chris|W|P|Boredinaz,

Sounds like something Nathan Sproul would do.

http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2006/07/nathan_sprouls_.html7/28/2006 11:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|dongoldwater.com... hehheh, you said 'dong'. Dong Old Water....! hilarious...

Seriously though, Domains by Proxy is the equivalent of a dead drop. The Goldwater people could have easily ginned this up themselves to get some ink and smear the Gov.

Domain by Proxy's EULA has a caveat: they won't protect your privacy if their services are used to "Engage in morally objectionable activities, including but not limited to those which are child pornographic, defamatory, abusive, harassing, obscene, racist, or otherwise objectionable." This could be considered harrassment. If Dong, er... Don's people are so concerned, they should complain to Domain by Proxy and demand the registrant's info.

That they don't and won't should tell you exactly who is responsible. I know for a fact how easy this is to do. I once redirected www.NetworkForEvil.com to GOP.com. Worked great until the GOP figured it out somehow and blocked their servers from responding to that domain. To this day I wonder what the heck that staffer was looking for at NetworkForEvil.com... looking to sell what was left of his soul, perhaps?7/29/2006 08:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|I do wonder what Munsil and Montgomery are doing attacking hard-working police officers and detectives?

I mean these guys are trying and to hold a press conference just to attack them by proxy. When you say AG and the Guv suck, you really mean the work the police are doing. One is saying that the detectives are too stupid to solve this crime and THAT my friends is a fucking scandal.

I'd love to see those two spoiled brats hold that press conference downtown near the police center and say that shit in front of a squad of officers... off duty.7/30/2006 01:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|OUCH!!!

The number e is the natural BASE for exponential functions. A LOGARITHM is properly defined as an exponent itself, or if taken as a function, is the INVERSE of an exponential function. Hence the natural logarithm is the power that you would raise the base e to in order to obtain the argument of the logarithm. What you have is indeed e ^ -1, which is however not a logarithm at all.

Can't argue with your deep political insights, but I've got an argument with your math.7/30/2006 10:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Darn...it's now fixed, Eli.7/30/2006 03:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|chris,

Exactly! And who is Nathan Spawn working for??.....7/30/2006 09:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|Sproul is working for Len Munsil among others.7/27/2006 09:52:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|As many of you know, Rep. Russ Jones made it on to the ballot after all. I read some crowing here and on some of the Republican-oriented blogs about it. The Arizona Supreme Court found that what happened did not constitute forgery, but it did find that:

Substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that Jones presented petitions to the Arizona Secretary of State on June 7, 2006, which he signed as the circulator, knowing that he did not obtain the signatures in his presence as required by A.R.S. § 16-321.

To put it simply, Jones is not a forger, but he did lie. Heck of a campaign slogan. The Arizona Democratic Party has a website up detailing their version of events here. I checked it out, and I saw something that just went to show what a tangled web politics here in the Old Pueblo can be. The case that was referenced with regards to the circulator's signature is one called Brousseau v. Fitzgerald. The protagonists in that case were two Democrats running for the State Senate in what was then District 14 on the East Side of Tucson, Pima Community College Boardmember Georgia Brousseau and Jack "The Color TV King" Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald had some teenagers walking petitions for him, and had other volunteers who were walking with them sign the back. The court found in that case that the people who signed the backs of the petitions did not "witness" the signatures, and thus the petitions were thrown out. The case is often referenced in petition challenges, and has even been cited in cases in other states. Here is where it gets into Kevin Bacon territory: Brousseau lost the general election that year, but tried to make a political comeback of sorts three years ago by attempting to get appointed to the then-vacant District 29 House seat. She was unsuccessful, losing out to...my brother. Many of you know that I serve on the Tucson Sign Code Committee. I was chairman for a short time before I was ousted and replaced by...Jack Fitzgerald. I tell people I live in the biggest small town in America. NB - Oh, and the seat that Brousseau and Fitzgerald coveted was occupied only two years before by , who was running against Rep. Jim McNulty, whose son chairs Gabrielle Giffords's campaign. Both Kolbe and McNulty talked to Patty Weiss that year, no doubt.|W|P|115402137213688517|W|P|Jonesin'|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/27/2006 11:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tony GOPrano|W|P|Rep. Russ Jones is a honorable man, unlike you share/the/same/brain dems. When are you guys going to get it? BTW, I got my Clean Elections Early Voting Guide and I must say, Teddie, you have one ugly mug....I thought I was ugly but.....Forgetaboutit!!!7/27/2006 12:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski,

I also received the Clean Election voting guide. I think your photo looks great but what is with your brother not sending a picture or even a statement?

Did he get that idea from the Mike Harris School of How to Loose an Election?7/27/2006 01:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Russ Jones is an honorable man who the court found actually cheated on his petitions and lied about it.


What is in dispute is if taking him off the ballot is too severe a punishment, and the sup court thought so.7/27/2006 05:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Oh, let it go already. What's done is done and after all, what he did is "rather common," according to tedski. It's apparently just not rather common to get caught.

Do you really want to go down this road or would you rather take the higher one and run against Russ Jones on the issues?7/25/2006 06:59:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Regular readers of this blog may remember a July 7th entry entitled "J. D. Hayworth Needs to Pick Better Heroes" Check this out: on July 14th, the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix ran an editorial with the following sentence:
We're not saying that Hayworth is anti-Semitic - only that he should choose his heroes more carefully.
Then today, E. J. Montini writes a column entitled, guess what, "Should Hayworth Choose His Heroes More Carefully?" And do I get an ounce of credit? No. Anyhow, the interesting thing for me is the comments of co-author, Joseph J. Eule:
If Henry Ford is off limits on Americanization, Thomas Jefferson must likewise be off limits on liberty because he owned slaves. I hope we haven't reached the point where Thomas Jefferson is no longer welcome in polite society.
Eule misunderstands the problem here. The problem wasn't that Ford was being quoted as a buisnessman, or even as a plutocratic union buster. Ford was being praised for his views on "Americanization," a term that Hayworth chooses to associate with Ford's definition of that word. Ford's "Americanization" was closely associated with his anti-semitism; they were in fact, inseparable in his mind. To borrow Eule's metaphor, we can admire Jefferson's stirring words on the liberty and dignity of the individual, but, like Ford's anti-semetic views, his views on slavery are unwelcome in polite society. By the way, instead of apologizing, or even clarifying his views on Ford, Hayworth chose to accuse the writers of the Jewish News article of a political hack job. Typical J. D.|W|P|115388058879364158|W|P|Further Proof of this Blog's Growing Influence on Arizona Politics and, If I May Humbly Say, Western Civilization|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/25/2006 09:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Oh c'mon, tedski.

Don't you know that having a lobotomy means never having to say you're sorry?7/25/2006 10:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|Tedski - getting credit isn't all that it's cracked up to be - I was quoted in a Hayworth press release. Ugh.7/26/2006 01:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|did he tell you that he had to agree to disagree?7/26/2006 09:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Actually, Jefferson's views on slavery were surprisingly enlightened. As a representative of Virginia, he recognized both the hard fact that the southern economy was largely built on slavery, and that the matter of slavery was a major unsolved problem and with the rest of the founding fathers he wrestled with it, and they collectively made half steps towards abolition, such as banning the importation of slaves after 1808. The goal of course was a single union and they hoped that the problem of slavery could be put off and eventually solved at a later date (as it eventually was, because the superb system which they designed has failed exactly once-- and ultimately over the matter of slavery).

Jefferson's writings on the inherent contradiction of trying to build a better and more free society when slavery existed show a man who was perplexed with what he considered an unsolvable problem. He recognized that it was a moral wrong, and he had hoped to free his own slaves at his death but the debt which he died in prevented it.

However, Jefferson should not be considered as, for example, George Washington or Andrew Jackson, early Presidents who saw nothing wrong with slavery and believed that it would exist as a permanent institution.7/25/2006 12:05:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I just picked this item up from Josh Marshall's excellent Talking Points Memo blog. The folks at Sunlight Foundation have developed a new tool, what they refer to as a "widget," that bloggers can use on their pages called "Pop-Up Politician." This "widget" will appear on my page as a sun icon following the name of a member of congress. The icon can be rolled over to give a capsule of information on the member, and will include links to further information such as funding and votes. For example, if I post the names of our two Southern Arizona Congressmen, and , you see the "sun" icon and you can get a pop-up of information about either one by passing the mouse over it. I suppose I could have a field day and put others up, such as , or even . There is, as yet, no way to do something similar with congressional candidates or ex-members. Both TPM and Sunlight Labs have details about how to use this tool on your own blog. NB - Apparently, there is no love for the non-voting congressional delegates, and you can't "pop-up" Eni Faleomavaega. Darn. If the pop-ups become irritating, y'all write me and I'll stop using them.|W|P|115385433947007417|W|P|"Pop-Up Politicians"|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/25/2006 12:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|That is truly geekalicious!7/25/2006 05:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Wow! I just had a dorkasm! ... a blogasm?

Ummm --- maybe I will regret this comment.7/25/2006 06:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Fred, is that you?7/27/2006 08:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|I love it, but it looks like a bit too much work for my blog. If they ever come up with a way to make the names automatically "highlight", like those annoying double-underlined links you see on some pages, I would be all over that.7/24/2006 06:50:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Some unfounded and contradictory rumors have been circulating over the last couple of weeks:
  • Alex Rodriguez will drop out of the race and endorse Jeff Latas.
  • Rodriguez will drop out of the race and endorse Patty Weiss.
  • Rodriguez will drop out of electoral politics and don a mask and cape to carry on his fight for justice, because Republicans are a superstitious, cowardly lot.
Okay, I made up the last one. During the 2002 race in CD 7, a supporter of Elaine Richardson approached candidate Mark Fleischer. He showed Fleischer a poll showing him at 9% and postulating that if he were to drop out, Richardson could get his "anti-Grijalva" votes and win. Instead Fleischer looked at the numbers and said, "Looks like I'm doing better than I thought. I'm staying in." I can see Rodriguez doing much the same thing. I was at an event with him on Saturday, and he still comes off as a guy who is totally convinced that he is going to win this. Good for him. Also, this sort of attention, even if it is inside baseball, can serve to bolster a candidate. If people want the votes of your supporters so badly, you must have quite a few of them, right? The silliest thing about such rumors is the built in assumption that a candidate can quit the race, endorse someone and his or her votes would magically move over, like a player quitting a poker game handing his chips over to a friend. I suppose that with reliable polling data someone can make a reasonable assumption that one candidate's or another votes would go one way or another. Given how low Rodriguez's polling numbers are right now, it doesn't seem like where his voters would go can be accurately measured. Still, look for whoever narrowly loses this primary to claim that the "anti-winner" vote was split among their candidate and the also rans. It happens every time.|W|P|115374904862454168|W|P|Department of Unfounded Rumors Department|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/24/2006 11:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|So no rumors on A-Rod supporting the DLC darling? I'm wondering if he did back someone other than you know who, would that be considered "negative?"7/24/2006 12:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Nope ... he can back anyone he likes if he gets out of the race.

Of course, if while doing so he criticizes the clearly best candidate (Giffords) for being "corrupt", but then admits he has no evidence so is basically making it up ... yeah, that would be "negative".7/24/2006 12:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.7/24/2006 12:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|Sirocco,

Clear as mud. Just like what was thrown at NC a week and a half ago.

It's on youtube.


Not what I would think the "best" would do. She's got along way to go before being "clearly the best."

She was doing fine until she opened mouth and inserted foot. Going negative after saying that "Dems don't do that kind of thing here" was a pretty big shoe sandwich.

I heard that Weiss was working the candidates to get out. A-Rod is obviously a target. I don't think he will contribute much to any of the other campaigns. He could actually hurt them based on his anti-homosexual positions.7/24/2006 12:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|I don't need to see the edited youtube Latas ad. Patty had a shot coming after her radio remarks, and got off easy, really. There's a reason that remark by Giffords got the biggest cheer of the night, because the audience knew Weiss had it coming as well.

People complain first she's too passive, then complain when she gives a return shot. Basically, you're looking to complain.

I had heard the same thing vis-a-vis Weiss, actually. I would think she would want Latas out, but I can't imagine Jeff leaving the race.7/24/2006 05:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|Not edited. The remark of the person wanting to get GG to reply was taken out to save time, that was it.7/24/2006 09:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Bravo, Sirocco! Weiss had intimated a connection between contributions and legislative votes by Giffords in the Tucson Weekly, in a post on Daily Kos and on the John C. Scott Show...without bringing forth a shred of evidence short of the ONE committee vote Giffords explained very well at the debate. A single vote does not a pattern make, Patty!

I was in the audience at the debate, too. Gabby's shot at Patty WAS well-received, as Sirocco says, because the audience of political junkies knew about what Patty had been stirring up on the Internet, on the radio and in the pencil press for several weeks. She got taken down a few pegs and richly deserved it.

Negative campaigning has an effect when it confirms thoughts that are already in the public mind. No one in the Democratic Party has the image of Giffords that Patty and her campaign tried to foist on them. That's why they are unable to cut into the broad-based support Gabby has from all segments of the party.7/25/2006 01:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|I have been trying to cure my addiction to these blogs but since no one seems to have brought it up, I have to. I have a question for Giffords' supporters.

No other candidate has gone negative and attacked someone personally. They attacked positions, records, and donation sources tied in. Giffords' was on her high horse about accusing others of going negative, when they never pulled out anything personal.

At the Nucleus Club forum, Giffords' clearly went negative and personal when she compared Weiss to a Fox News reporter. Hypocritically, right after she made this posturing speech about how Democrats don't go negative. The moderator even had to step in after her childish attack and say they can debate records but not make it personal. How did Weiss react? Cool as a cucumber. What was that she mouthed? "Unbelievable" I think. Couldn't have said it better myself.

The real kudos goes to Latas though. Having the advantage of going right after Giffords he effectively slam dunked her record on the bill by defining Democratic values and implying she didn’t support them in her vote. Contrary to what some said, he did NOT come across as the “angry man” but a seasoned campaigner.

So, how do you all feel about your candidate now? Seems the critics who have claimed she lacks the maturity and temperament for the job were correct.

Is it time for Latas and Weiss to pull out the personal file and give her a one two punch?

What about the diversion tactics and the direct lies in her response? I am surprised the Latas and Weiss campaigns haven't issued statements on that or at least blogged on it. Giffords gave both campaigns a huge gift. Go back and view the video in both content and delivery and you will find a gold mine. Hint, a good one to use in your own ads showing how real Representatives should not act. Make hypocrisy the theme. Or let Giffords win and lose this seat for liberals in November. Your call.7/25/2006 01:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Giffords "explained very well in the debate"? Hardly.

She said the bill would not give one more uninsured person access to health care. A diversion tactic since the bill was not designed to do that, but it WAS about who PAYS for the care. Other legislation was about who gets access, as Giffords well knows.

She said it was a bad bill but never factually said why. She said there was no enforcement provision. Does Giffords' think the legislature is now an enforcement agency? Her job isn't to enforce, it is to legislate.

There are other problems with this response. Factually, it was inaccurate since the state DOES know who those largest violators are, as clearly the Arizona Daily Star knew when the published the numbers listing Wal-Mart and Bashas as the top two. How can the ADS find that info and Giffords thinks no one else can? Of course, she flat out lied.

The other problem is, Giffords did not address what Weiss brought up, that if her sole reason for voting against the bill was the enforcement issue, then why didn't she submit an amendment? She never answered Weiss on that, because she couldn't. Her entire response was a fabrication she floated after trying about 3 other responses that were effectively shot down on the blogs and at legislative meetings. If Weiss had been given the opportunity to counter (she should have since Giffords got to go on when it wasn't her turn) then Weiss could have pointed out that everything Giffords said was bull. Of course, you all know that since you have been floating her response for weeks on all the AZ blogs to try to see how it played.

The worst part of Giffords response was not even the content, but her physicality. Her expression on her face look like a child throwing a temper tantrum. I guess the rumor she is a hot head is true. I thought her head was going to start spinning and some green pea soup was ready to be vomited out of her mouth. Latas’ filmers should have done a close-up zoom shot of her mouth. That would have been enough to scare voters away.

BTW, I was in the audience too, Rex, and the only reason Giffords response got the applause, was because she pre-packed the room with her supporters as evident by the Giffords' stickers on their shirts. A good campaign strategy, but not indicative of how in the real voting world people perceive these kinds of disingenuous responses and diversion tactics.

Giffords came across as petty and defensive and Latas and Weiss came across as smooth and professional.

Sirocco, when you say there is "no evidence" to back up Giffords being corrupt, you had better make sure you have done your homework. Some might just look at is an open invitation to produce some not so flattery "evidence". It is always a good idea to know more about your own candidate than the opposition knows. And by "opposition", I am not only talking about other Democrats.7/25/2006 01:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Rex, nice to see you defend negative campaigning when it is your candidate going negative.

I can see why you all support her now. Hypocrites support hypocrites.

Lunch break is over and I have better things to do.7/25/2006 02:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Fedup,

I disagree with you right at the point where you say:

"No other candidate has gone negative and attacked someone personally. They attacked positions, records, and donation sources tied in. Giffords' was on her high horse about accusing others of going negative, when they never pulled out anything personal."

Weiss clearly implied on the John. C. Scott show Giffords was corrupt. It was carefully worded, but the point was unmistakable.

I, at least, consider an accusation of corruption, even a thinly veiled one, to be a personal attack.7/25/2006 02:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Fedup,

A follow up to your remark directed at me -- my comment was sarcastically mirroring what Weiss essentially said on radio, "Giffords is corrupt, although I can't actually provide evidence to support that."

That of course is not an exact quote of Weiss' words, but it sums up the meaning pretty concisely I think.7/25/2006 03:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|You asked how do you feel about your candidate now?

I feel completely fine about Giffords...in fact...I feel better than before. I was worried for a bit that the attacks being made were going to just fall on deaf ears and that she would be accused of not having the ability to stand up for herself. That thought is now quite quite over. She is tough and won't take the crap (as so many hear brag about Weiss and Latas).

The smears began with Weiss and some of the supporters of Latas on the blogs. Some of you "begged" for a response from her and not her "blog squad" as someone put it. She responded...did not look like a hothead, but instead looked quite strong.

You all would have bitched and moaned to the ages about her not responding in her own words (as some put it here) and now that she does you continue the attacks calling her a hothead and immature.

I have no worries about her campaign. It appears that her volunteers have geered up to attract and get voters. I am sure the other campaigns are too. We shall see what happens.7/25/2006 09:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Re NC--It was pretty obvious that both Weiss and Giffords had pre-planned for this intercharge.

The crux issue underneath all of this is funding of campaigns--given the INCREDIBLY large amount of government money [whether it be in the form of subsidies, tax credits, other policies] that goes to "special" interests, I would be more than happy to pay for public financing of federal candidates so that they are beholden to nobody but the voters in their congressional district or state.7/26/2006 02:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This is my opinion only...and a philosophical point to debate. It is on clean election and public financing. I had a VERY moderate Republican state rep. come by to speak to a group today. He argued that Clean Elections had given the religious right an easy way to get candidates past primaries and a chance at office. The argument was that they were AS tied (or more so) to special interests.

Clean elections still provides special interest ties in the form of the organization it takes to get the $5 increments. It also makes it easier for those with extreme views (on either side of the party...) and who have single issue interest backing to get a platform.

I definitely see the benefits, but I ask if it really rids the system of special interest influence or if it just shoves that influence into a different place?7/26/2006 02:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger kralmajales|W|P|On ties to special interests...another blogger on AZ Congress Watch (and a Latas supporter) posted that Patty Weiss' campaign had taken money from Don Diamond, his wife, and another executive of Diamond Ventures. It was a LOT of money.

Here is what I found on www.fec.gov:

Don Diamond
2200 E. River Road #115
Tucson, Arizona 85718 Self-Employed 04/18/2006 2000.00

That is $2000 twice.

I have two questions:

1. Does this silence the Weiss campaign on the taking of special interest dollars? Here it is big developer Republicans.

2. More importantly, I have heard Mr. Diamond is a huge supporter of Steve Huffman. Is this more of a move to try to get a bigger fight in the Democratic Primary, to make candidates here spend more cash, and to benefit Republicans in the fall?

I have no evidence to back either claim except for the donation. Thoughts?7/26/2006 03:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Roger,

Don't know for sure, but Diamond is a huge supporter of Huffman, as is Click.

I heard late May that a Weiss victory on 9/12 was part of the Huffman strategic plan and that action items were associated with it. Could not learn the actions.

That's why I got a little excited by this $14K to Swiftboat someone, although realized that may have just paid for the ad already produced.

We both know the anti-G bloggers who blast away about how she can't win the general. That isn't what Huffman camp is thinking.

Giffords would rather face Graf. Huffman would rather face Weiss.

I don't think either will get their wish.7/26/2006 06:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger kralmajales|W|P|Hey Xm4r:

Interesting points. I have heard so many say that Giffords was the one that the Republicans and their powerful backers wanted to face...it appears that they want to face Patty Weiss now. Maybe there are alternative explanations.

Maybe the repubs might finally be afraid that someone might out organize and outspend them as Giffords appears to be doing. I think they'd love a fight over on this side of the fence and would love love to have the money spent by both campaigns only to have less left for the fall. They may also get them to draw blood on each other so that the Republicans don't have to do so.

Or...maybe the Diamonds are just friends of the family like the Chief Exec of Aetna that donated to Weiss' campaign.

Or...maybe they are trying to buy influence.

Other hypotheses?7/26/2006 10:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|Interesting post over on Gilamonsterville.


Looks like G Tuttle is back.7/27/2006 08:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Of course the notion of a bloody and expensive primary on one side would delight the other side, and some of this could be going on.

Rich folks like Diamond, Finley, Click typically spread it around according to some design. Who is giving to whom just doesn't excite me. Campaigns desperately need funds and will take whatever they can get unless it is REALLY tainted, like the KKK or something.

I think it's become a "hot topic" because Weiss has been loud about it, and at Nucleus Giffords smacked back. Now she can smack harder.

We've had fun sharing views and speculating. Reality is rapidly approaching, and my prediction:

1. Blogosphere is about to be invaded by a bunch of new folks starting to pay attention and doing google searches that lead to blogs.
2. The depth and breadth of the work done by the Giffords camp will emerge and her nomination becomes a slam dunk.
3. "Somehow" the Huffman camp will do what it takes to get the CD 8 GOP masses to believe a vote for Graf is a vote for the democrat in November.

Giffords vs. Huffman neck and neck to the very end.

But hey, what do I know?7/27/2006 09:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Xm4r...

Interesting hypotheses about the race.

On Graf/Huffman/Hellon. It is too soon for me to tell. Huffman has a lot more money on hand and will have...however there is that split potential with Hellon, who appears to have a lot more support than I had thought.

Graf, still excites the conservative base it seems. I am wondering if they are going to believe strongly that he can't win. His border stances excite them and his pro-life and family values. That plays to the base. The "vote for Graf is a vote for Giffords" is only a reality if moderate Republicans turn out in a primary. Given some of the polls I have seen, right now, Democrats are much more excited about voting than ever before and Republicans appear to be much less so in the same polls (lowest numbers in years).

So, how does Huffman get them to turn out for him? How will he keep Hellon from grabbing some of those "anti-Graf" voters. AND...how will they keep pro-Graf voters from getting tee'd off and working even harder to elect Randy.7/27/2006 11:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Excellent questions of course, and I have no answers.

But, since we're in the unfounded rumors department.

The businessman was exceedingly confident about Huffman and that Huffman wanted to face Weiss and would actually take action to try to make that happen.

When I said I'd heard the R's wanted to face Giffords, he cut me a look suggesting I was a complete idiot.

We were bored and waiting for our respective flights. For all I know he got on the plane and started laughing to the guy next to him, "Guess what I just told some stupid democrat!"7/27/2006 11:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Xm4r:

Very interesting. I remember a similar look from a prominent Republican when I told him back in March that I was supporting Giffords and that she had $500K (back in March).

Here I go with the money again...but...Patty was not able to match her fundraising total from the first quarter. There is no indication that she can bring the support organizationally and the funds necessary to win this election. Her name rec. is high but Republicans know very well how to fight off a name rec. opponent with no record.

Think about the last Tucson City Election folks. Not a huge voter base, but remember what happened. Two incumbent Republicans were turned out of office last year after the Democrat Party and its support of Demcrat groups (remmber that Barney bus folks?) worked hard to turn out voters.

Giffords has most endorsements and has the organization and ties to bring a much larger turnout machine against the Repubs. They know that. They also know that she can out raise them or keep up.

There is no doubt, based on this, that they fear facing Giffords most.

Although, I bet Repubs on here will tell us that they really fear no one.7/27/2006 02:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|When GG loses, the endorser will come a gravally to the nominee with tail tucked.

The Demo nominee will have all the assets, no matter who wins.7/27/2006 03:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I agree "boohoo"...except for the part "when GG loses."

It won't, however, hurt to have the head start, relationships, organization, and money in the bank that GG already has...and that the other candidates don't have.7/27/2006 09:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|x4mr said...

I highly doubt you heard that Huffman wants to run against Weiss and are "helping" to make her the candidate.

That would be Giffords. Finley donated the max to both of them.

Huffman's own poll showed Weiss beating the pants off him. Why would he want to run against her?

I know you are just trying to throw readers off, but my information that I posted about the April poll was correct. Check out Huffman's FEC reports and you will find he did pay for a poll in April. That poll told him Giffords is the candidate he needs to run against in the general.7/27/2006 09:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Roger,
Thanks for making the argument the extreme right and all the corporate lobbyists make against Clean Elections.

You need to join the right party. You sure like to use their talking points.7/27/2006 09:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Emersome Biggums said...

And you are saying Latas would not take any money from Diamond if offered?

Get real. Latas can't even raise enough money from small donors which makes his grassroots support very questionable.

Maybe Diamond is a "good friend" to Weiss as Giffords has claimed of Finley and Basha.

Only difference is, Weiss hasn't had votes affected by those contributions. Giffords can't claim the same.

BTW, her new ads are really boring. Not sure what image she is trying to go for but it sure didn't looking like a Congresswoman. Hopefully Latas and Weiss will have better ones.

Somehow I doubt it though.7/27/2006 09:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|OK, Fedup.

For the Huffman rumor here, I am only reporting what I heard at an airport over a drink with an active republican who does real estate loans (uh, what does Huffman do?).

He considered it idiocy to think Giffords is the easy target, and said H campaign felt same way.

If you think he is full of it, fine.

Shifting to my views. The funds raised and the growing list of endorsements are the ice above the water. They are the tip of an infrastructure and organization that neither Jeff nor Patty possess. Why wouldn't a politician like Huffman get this?

Come on, Fedup, you really think Weiss is stronger against Huffman in CD 8?

Couldn't give a ____ about a poll conducted in April. OF COURSE Weiss would look stronger than H or G at that time.7/28/2006 06:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|The most endorsements from both organizations, indviduals and elected officials. The highest amount and the highest number of contributions. The most petition signatures submitted. Support from the left, center and right of the party.

These are ALL strengths Giffords brings to the table in November. No other Democrat has them. If Huffman or any other potential GOP nominee thinks they are better off taking on these attributes, than their reasoning skills are equal to those of the GOP House leadership that has worked with Bush to run this country into debt while increasing the hatred of Americans around the world.

On another note, I can't compare this district to the one in California that Bilbray won and will hold in November. CD8 is more moderate and has demographic characteristics (more rural, more minorities, more independents) that sets it apart from CA-CD50. The GOP can't count on the same campaign that helped them there winning here.

Last, I still feel that Huffman's money can not overcome the dilution of his hopes by the presence of Hellon and the two minor candidates in the race. The "anyone but Graf" vote is split and Graf's backers are "true believers." What we need to plan for is an energized conservative base that is pumped to support Graf, Munsil and Kyl...and hopes to cut into the edge Democrats usually need in Pima County to offset big GOP votes in Maricopa.7/28/2006 08:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Wrong Fedup...the extreme right LOVES Clean Elections...as will the extreme left when they figure out that it just takes a well organized interest group to get enough $5 donations to get most any candidate enough signatures and dollars to run.

That really isn't a big deal to me. The more the merrier. My argument is simply that there is no system that I can think of that really rids special interest group politics from politics. Changing the rules DO however allow more access for groups that might not have the money normally to fight the corporations. That might be a benefit.7/29/2006 12:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|KRAMALJALES--I think you're incorrect re public financing of campaigns. If the system is set up so that there is sufficient funding and parity between what the publicly funded and non-publicly funded candidates have [as Arizona's system seems to be], it could make a great difference in how politics is done in Congress. Right now, given how much it costs to run a campaign, candidates are almost IMPELLED into spending a good part of their time raising money and feeling the need to meet with those who have lots of money to give them for their re-election, as opposed to those who can't give them money. Publicly funded campaigns would at least help those who are honest, stay honest/independent.7/29/2006 08:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I think you are right about that CC to some extent...and I do support public funding of campaigns. It is the only way I could ever afford to run for office if I were to do so. Same for lots of others.

I do disagree, though, that public funding would eliminate interest group politics. It definitely allows more people with a diversity of views to run, however, that doesn't mean that they are not connected to, or even sponsored by, interest groups.

For example, Len Munsil's campaign is currently financed by Clean Elections funds. Because of his ties to the Christian right and the Center for Arizona Policy, he was able to mobilize the necessary $5 contributions in a very very short period of time. Where did all of that support come from and where will it be throughout this election?

Again, not opposed, more people with a variety of views can run, but does that mean the strings are gone? Not sure.7/23/2006 12:39:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Nevada won out in the competition to be the caucus after Iowa. There is still the possibility that Arizona can have an early primary, maybe even the first after New Hampshire like in 2004. I would allege that the Nevada Democratic Party plied the Democratic National Committee with hookers and booze, but now that Las Vegas is family friendly and everything, I guess the only allegations I have left are bribes of tickets for Céline Dion and Cirque du Soleil. I shudder to think. Even though Arizona will not be as early on the calendar, the fact that another state is in there among the "Dynamic Duo" already spreads the wealth a bit. Any attention that is taken off of Iowa and New Hampshire diminishes their importance, and that helps out the later states. The geography helps us a bit too, a candidate travelling to Nevada may find it relatively easy to take a side trip here for a primary that would be coming up a few weeks later. With New Hampshire and Iowa a bit less important, it may also lend attention to a slightly later state like ours. A candidate may need to win Arizona to build momentum from the now slightly less important first two states, or may need us as a last ditch must win after losses in those states. I doubt any decision on the primary date will be made until after Janet Napolitano's re-election. NB - Speaking of Nevada, we apparently have a Republican candidate for State House this year named Travis Junion. I just find that funny. That's all. I think his advisors will tell him that that is not the right way to wear the vest, right?|W|P|115368505901688636|W|P|It's Nevada|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/23/2006 02:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I think Nevada was a lot smarter then you think. They probably offered to NOT give the DNC any tickets to Celine Dion and any of the other terrifying shows. :)7/23/2006 04:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This is interesting. The importance (or lack thereof) of Nevada depends on whether insitutions die hard or not.

We may find that the candidates and media give Nevada little attention, which will take the steam right out of it as a stop. For instance, didn't Delaware have a primary or caucus quickly after Iowa and New Hamphire? If I remember everyone basically ignored it for South Carolina. I am just not sure what Nevada gets you in terms of media bounce, momentum, or anything else, unless the media and candidates make it as important a stop as Iowa/New Hampshire. The media might "jazz" it up a bit because of Vegas and the colorful story that it could bring as a campaign stop...plus it is freaking warm that time of year, but I am not so sure.

Maybe the the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire were thinking this also.

Arizona, with its substantantial growth/suburban population, the fact that it is a border state, and its Hispanic population might have really attracted some folks and the supporters of the status of Iowa/NH would have not wanted that so much.7/23/2006 06:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|I agree with kralmajales. Arizona was an infinitely better choice than Nevada.7/23/2006 06:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|AZ does not have Harry Reid though...wonder if that had an impact.7/23/2006 08:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|The more I think about it, the more I wonder who, if anyone, will campaign hard in Nevada vs. Iowa and New Hampshire. The tradition/institution built is that the press covers these two races very hard. As a result, those who run campaign there very hard. It is the place, of course, where an upset can mean some momentum (Carter/Kerry) and a poorer than expected outcome can kill a campaign (Dean).

I just keep thinking whether a Warner, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, or anyone else would dare spend time and money in Nevada when they should be, after Iowa, rolling into the New Hampshire.

Maybe the person who stumbles could hope really hard for a win to stop the bleeding in Nevada? My guess is that the person who wins Iowa or comes in second, will also win Nevada while all the attention focuses on NH.7/24/2006 12:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|I'm disappointed they chose NV, but at least they got a Western state involved.

I saw on DailyKos a couple weeks ago someone (I belive an IA newspaper columnist) was suggesting both parties agree to take the prior election to rank the states from most contested to least contested, then hold the primaries in that order.

The notion was that way the states in which there is the most for each part to gain or lose would be the first with primaries, and would get the big emphasis from the candidates.

Was an interesting idea ... never happen, of course.7/24/2006 01:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I doubt any decision on the primary date will be made until after Janet Napolitano's re-election.

*GASP!* Oh my God, you've jinxed her!!!!!!!!!!!

(not that I'm superstitious or anything)7/24/2006 02:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Travis Junion|W|P|Tedski,

Funny thing, I was thinking about tivoing Reno 911 recently. This is certainly the beginning of my fifteen minutes of fame as a candidate. There is a uncanny similarity between me and the character in the show. When I first registered to vote, my card came back as "Travis Junior" due to a county flunky misreading my name, big surprise there! I am also a huge fan of Southern Rock. If my doppelganger gets me a couple of votes, I won't complain. You are an old hand at the game of politics. How about this for a campaign slogan: Travis Junion, funny name, serious leadership? Thanks for the mention on Sunday, I am glad that I was able to provide some comic relief. I'll host a viewing party at my place soon!

Best regards,

Travis L. Junion
Republican Candidate
Arizona House of Representatives
Legislative District Eight

www.TravisJunion.com7/25/2006 11:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tony GOPrano|W|P|I'm sure they pick Nevada over Arizona since Nevada is so much more liberal than Arizona. Plus you were correct, Nevada's HO's are nastier than AZ's HO's. Your running in the wrong state Teddy....maybe you should move to Vegas....take your show on the road. You would fit right in with all the wackos there...haha!!!
Fergitaboutit!!!!7/26/2006 09:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I think Elizabeth nailed it.

Nevada has the majority leader in the Senate, while if they had the early caucus in Arizona the national media folks would be spending most of their time here talking to Republicans about John McCain.

On top of which, at that time of year, most of the attention in Arizona will be focused on Lute Olson and the Wildcats, while UNLV has been mostly boring since they got rid of Tark and cleaned up the program.7/23/2006 07:07:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Today's Star ran a story on the continuing sapping of Tucson's political power in this state. Former (more like "ersatz") congressional candidate Dwight Leister had the following reply:

It is not just who is the biggest in Arizona but wages being surpressed by MEXICANS is beginning to hit home! Take a look at your southern Arizona Congressman and get a feel for what Tucson is in store for!

Wages are being supressed by "Mexicans." Hmm..notice he doesn't say "undocumented" or "illegal." And worst of all, so he says, Tucson is in store for more "Mexican" congressmen. I'm glad this guy didn't try to file. We didn't need him. This is my trouble with the anti-Immigrant crowd. I hear their arguments about depressed wages, security and higher crime rates; I don't agree with them, but at least it seems to be about policy. But some of them, like this guy, keep talking and eventually it isn't about "illegal aliens," it starts to become about "Mexicans," then it's a short trip to "Mexican-Americans." And then they wonder why people would actually think they are racist.|W|P|115366409553757371|W|P|But Dwight Leister Assures Us He Is Not A Racist|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/23/2006 09:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Tedski,
I'm really glad that you brought this up because flagrant, in your face racism is absolutely where all this immigrant bashing is headed. It makes sense, of course, because things like this tend to expand and escalate especially when people need simple explanations and scapegoats. Also, those who have been silent racists get an opportunity to be more vocal when the opinions of the masses move closer to their own.

I grew up in the Jim Crow south and I can say that I have seen racism at its ugliest. And, what I'm seeing now is a just a blatant and shameless resurgence of the same thing, this time against Mexicans.

Any reasonable person who thinks about this somewhat objectively can easily figure it out. A racist is not going to distinguish very much between an illegal immigrant, a legal immigrant, an American of Hispanic descent, or anyone else who looks Hispanic. They all get painted with the same tar brush, make no mistake about it.

One of my Republican neighbors told me recently that illegal immigration is the root cause of all the problems in this country. I asked this guy what he thought about US forieign policy in the Mideast and he said its just not as important as illegal immigration. This is pretty typical coming from your average Fox News/conservative talk radio fan. And this is the price we pay for allowing Republicans to create a major distraction issue for each and every election.

In 2004 the right wing was gay bashing, now they're immigrant bashing. This stuff doesn't go away. Their loyal followers carry it with them for many years, perhaps their whole lives, and it translates into racism, hatred, and discrimination. Really ugly stuff reminiscent of the civil rights era in the south.

Good post. A very important and overlooked issue.7/25/2006 03:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Committee To Elect;Dwight D. Leister:Chair|W|P|I can assure everyone that "IAM NOT A RACIST!" As a Life Long Member of The AFL-CIO involved in Union Contract Negotiations I have sat in on and seen first hand how "Corporations" use the fact they have access to "Low Wage Labor" in Arizona that IS A MEXICAN LABOR FORCE. It can be legal or illegal as you point out;but one stark fact is a recently negotiated Contract between Kroger(Frys Food Stores) and Safeway with The United Food and Commercial Workers Union "REDUCED WAGES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES" by (4) FOUR DOLLARS PER HOUR; from around $15.00 dollars currently being paid to $11.00 Dollars now contracted! Also they reduced "INSURANCE BENIFITS" from Company to "PRIVATELY PAID." One other issue you addressed in your comments about me being a "RACIST" is Raul Grijalvia stating that as I advised Governor Janet Napolitano on taking a "FIRM STAND ON SECURING THE BORDER" and deployment of The National Guard to "AID THE BORDER PATROL AND INS AND DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY' (2) two years ago; Grijalvia labeled me in a SPEECH TO "LA RAZA" IN San Luis,AZ. which means "THE RACE" in English as "THE ANGLO SAXON MALE THAT ADVISES THE GOVERNOR ON BORDER ISSUES;INSULTING THE PEOPLE OF MEXICO!" Now who is the "REAL RACIST?!!" As for not needing me because of my stand to "Protect The American Worker;and "Enforce Legal Employment" you state, "Iam glad this guy did not file we don't need him anyway?!" I did NOT file in 2006 but have aimed at 2008 because of "CORPORATE MONEY HOGS" that seem to have a "LIP LOCK" on the voters! I will NOT "DANCE TO THERE TUNES!" I accept NO Endorsements nor am I seeking backing from any OTHER candidates or Corporations! We need "TOTAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM" that gets "MONEY OUT OF POLITICAL AD AGENCIES" and puts the Federally Controlled "AIR WAVES" back in the handsof "THE VOTERS" and away from "CORPORATE AMERICA!" I think you owe me and your readers an appology for calling me a Racist! My family ran the biggest "Underground Railroad" during the "Civil War" from Virginia to Valley Forge P.A. just miles from where I was born. "LEISTER SAFE HOUSES" Along that route are now "National Monuments!"

Dwight D. Leister:Chair
www.committee-to-elect.org7/25/2006 04:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Committee To Elect;Dwight D. Leister:Chair|W|P|As a former Executive Of The Circle K Corporation I saw first hand what my clerks were put through working 24 hour Stores on The 11pm to 7am shift; Mexican Gang Members making "Beer Runs" that has lead to the "Killing of Chris Cottle" at Quik Mart who tried to stop a "Mexican Gang" of (4) Four Thugs from stealing 3 12 packs of Beer;he was gunned down in the Parking lot! Those of you who try to make the increased crime and murders in Tucson a "NON ISSUE" "NOT RELATED TO MEXICAN GANGS THAT ILLEGALLY CROSSED INTO ARIZONA AND HAVE SET UP SHOP'" ARE SETTING UP MORE CLERKS TO BE KILLED! I have NOT seen (1) ONE statement from The Mayor;The Council:The City Police;The Pima County Sheriff:The Pima County Attorney;The Pima County Board Of Supervisors;condeming this Killing,and vowing to STOP FUTURE KILLINGS! I e-mailed Karen Uhlich and Nina Trasoff immediatly when I found out about the murder of Chris Cottle the night clerk in a Store that had over 400 calls to The Tucson City Police in the last two years,and over 10 robberies since January of 2005 with everyone "STUCK ON STUPID!" Therefore ITS TIME TO "VOTE STUPID OUT!"

Dwight D. Leister:Chair
www.committee-to-elect.org7/21/2006 11:33:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Arizona is a step closer to grab "first in the nation" status as a caucus state. Well, not first, because the DNC still seems to be wedded to the quaint notion that voters in New Hampshire and Iowa are naturally more qualified to all but hand pick the Party's nominees. Well, no one ever says that, but they do say that voters there are more familiar with the process and so forth. Hey, park a presidential candidate in Delaware or Idaho and let him visit every county party's fish fry and pancake flip, I bet they will be pretty familiar too. But I digress. One of the things that the DNC wants out of Arizona is real caucus, rather than the pseudo-primary process that the party followed from 1972 through the 2000 election. Previously, a "caucus state" could include those states without state run primaries. So, our "caucus" was nothing of the kind, instead it was just a really understaffed primary election with Xeroxed ballots. What the DNC asked for after Arizona first petitioned for this was a real Iowa-style caucus, where voters actually meet for a few hours on an evening and vote for their choice. The Arizona Democratic Party has now come up with a plan to staff such an event, and will be presenting it to the DNC tommorrow. I'm not sure if such a thing is going to be the organizing bonanza some are touting. We were told that an early primary in 2004 would do something like this, but the best organized campaigns whose candidates made numerous appearances (Wesley Clark, Howard Dean) won silver and bronze, while the winning candidate (John Kerry) did a "fly over" campaign. I realize this had a lot to do with larger dynamics in the race, but it does seem to put a lie to the premise that "early means attention," and also means that candidates that blow off a state (as long as it isn't one of the dynamic duo) don't necessarily get punished. However, the level of organization for such a caucus would be much higher and more intense than is necessary for a primary, so maybe this would result in more attention from the candidates. Given how much pressure there is from politicos in New Hampshire and Iowa on candidates to nearly exclusively campaign in their states, and the inability of the national political media to pay attention to any other states in that stage of the primaries, I don't hold out much hope. Robbie Sherwood and Chip Scutari have a rather comprehensive article on the caucus story. I don't know why they interviewed a Republican operative, who has no dog in this fight, and just took it as chance to take a shot at Gov. Janet Napolitano. Sherwood also talked to Matt Salmon about the Republican primary, but it left out an important point. The Republican primary doesn't choose delegates, not a one. For example, the 1996 primary was won by Steve Forbes, but the delegation was stocked with Bob Dole supporters and scant Forbes supporters. The 2000 primary was won by John McCain, but was still led by supporters of George W. Bush. The fact that neither one of these Arizona Primary winners was nominated may also be a big reason why no one interviewed seemed to have thought much about the Republican primary. The big problem I had with their article was the misreading of the history of our caucus and our process here:
Arizona normally holds a presidential preference primary for both parties, where voters go to the polls to cast ballots. But Arizona Democrats did experiment with the more freewheeling caucus approach, where voters gather publicly to debate and choose a candidate, in 1996 when Clinton won.
Only one Democratic presidential primary has been held, and only two have been held for the Republicans, who skipped the last contest and have traditionally made their selection at a closed convention. I don't think this adds up to "normally." But aside from that, the process in 1996 was not a "free wheeling caucus," but yet another "Firehouse Primary," where the party printed ballots and voters would vote and walk out. The process being considered here is one that calls for far more participation from regular voters, and will be the most "free-wheeling" we have ever had.|W|P|115350935903887671|W|P|So Which One Is It Where the Pricks Are On The Inside?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/21/2006 02:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|I'm a bit skeptical of an Arizona caucus, probably be more comfortable with a primary. Either way, though, Arizona is a great choice for a caucus/primary between IA and NH.7/21/2006 07:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.7/21/2006 07:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|THANK YOU!!! I am so tired of people acting like Iowa and NH were/are the only states to be the first to be able hold presidential contests during the primary season.

Once upon a time they were not first in the nation. And there is absolutely no reason for other states not to be first. The reason they were first seems to have changed to "um because have done that for X years and they have a good lobby." Maybe by having another state inserted (AZ cuz we are a major emerging talent state) into the process we can break their stranglehold and start having states that now reflect America more have a say first.7/20/2006 04:23:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This is Jim Pederson's new ad, debuting tomorrow. Just in time for prices to start going up again.
|W|P|115343793064653591|W|P|Gawd...the Embeded Video Posting Bug Strikes Me!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/20/2006 05:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I think I misheard that last line. Did he say, "You can't change Washington but you can change the people you send there?"7/20/2006 08:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Russ Jones is back on the ballot according to an AP story posted on the East Valley Tribune web site. I know you would want to know as soon as possible Ted.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/7/21/2006 10:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|Basically good ad, but way too positive.

No mud, no name-calling, no outright lies... how are people even supposed to know it's a campaign commercial?!7/21/2006 11:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|Here's What the Yuma Sun said:

the Supreme Court found "substantial evidence" to support Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Fields’ finding that Jones improperly signed his name on petitions as the circulator even though he knew he didn't actually obtain the signatures of voters nominating him to run as a candidate.

The higher court, however, found that Fields erred in concluding Jones committed petition fraud under a state law that actually defines forgery as knowingly signing the name of another person on a petition.

In other words, he broke the law, but got off on a technicality.

I guess Republican plutocrats don't have to obey the law.7/21/2006 08:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Yo Se Quien Soy|W|P|Bored in AZ,

I thought the same thing until I heard it closely, Jim says "You can't change Washington until you change the people that you send there"7/22/2006 07:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Prudent Man|W|P|Mr. Pederson's ad said he'd end price gouging by the oil companies. Sounds like a scare tactic considering the several investigations in Congress have determined the oil companies aren't colluding or gouging.7/23/2006 05:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Look who is doing the investigating though...

Oh...and this is the very point of taking back the House and Senate.7/20/2006 05:38:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Someone sent me an article from last Wednesday's Green Valley News profiling several Democratic candidates that showed up at a candidate forum. I tried to do a search on the News's website for the article, but I was unable to find it so I haven't linked it. If any of you have more luck, post the link in the comments. Anyway, Jeff Latas was apparently asked by the News about how he was going to be able to compete with Gabrielle Giffords, who has more money, and Patty Weiss, who has a higher name ID. Latas responded that he was making a major announcement soon:
It's a suprise - a rabbit out of the hat - and tens of thousands of voters will know who I am.
Hmm. Dear readers, any ideas on what this might be?|W|P|115339960446305256|W|P|Hey Rocky...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/20/2006 06:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.7/20/2006 08:13:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I have no freaking idea what the surprise will be. He had better have one though, because what Ted is saying is right on. In my opinion, Patty Weiss has the same basic stances that Latas has, but with more name rec.

The thing he has going for him is his tough rhetoric against the war in Iraq, his personality, and that he is a veteran.

Unless things change, I keep wondering if PDA or DFA voters will walk in the booth thinking: "I like Jeff Latas a lot, but Patty can win. They both have the same issues anyway." Why not?7/20/2006 08:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|Because Patty can not win a General, same with Gabby. The repugs will rip them both apart on Iraq and national security since niether one can defend themselves from a Rovian attack in this area. Latas is the only one that is ready for these attacks and the only one that stands a chance against Huffman or Hellon, since they are vets, too.7/20/2006 08:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Boohoo,

Why do you believe voters will only find veterans credible on Iraq and why is Latas the only one that can stand up to Republicans and win in the fall. I am not sure I see it that way.7/20/2006 08:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Framer|W|P|I'm guessing it has something to do with a visit and endorsement by Cindy Sheehan (or someone of like stature).

It's just a guess, however.7/20/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|boohoo,

I think John Kerry and Max Cleland would dispute your theory that veteran status immunizes a candidate from Rovian attacks.7/20/2006 09:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|You mention that Huffman and Hellon are vets, but you fail to mention Graf. His bio doesn't list any military service, but I am sure that a tough guy like him who loves guns must have worn the uniform of his country. I am certain that he was a 13 Bravo and is just very modest about it.7/20/2006 09:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger The Screaming Centrist|W|P|He's going to set himself on fire an ski down Mt. Lemmon (yes, I know there's no snow right now; he'll do it anyway). It's going to be awesome.7/20/2006 09:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|When the "Cut and Run coward" attack happens, there is only one that can deflect that mud. Latas is the only one that has the credentials that this frame can't stick. He's no coward. The others can only "say" they are not cowardly. The attack will stick to them. They have no experience in this area and they will look like the typical "big talk, little experience" Democrat that we have consistently sent to the slaughter house.

Bored, Latas has backbone that Kerry only wishes he could have grown. Latas is a fighter, a proven fighter.7/20/2006 09:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I fear that Latas is going to face the same scrutiny you say the other candidates are going to face. They won't be able to label him a coward, but they can certainly raise questions about his policy and what it will mean for the people of Iraq when troops are pulled out. A reunification of Ancient Persia? A new Shiite controlled empire?

I think any of the three candidates can go toe to toe on this issue, but the prospective message versus the retrospective message is going to be a key.7/20/2006 09:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Art Jacobson|W|P|Dear BooHoo,
You say, "Latas is the only one that has the credentials that this frame can't stick."

I'm not sure what those credentials are. He says he knew that we were facing a phoney war, but what was the nature of his protest while he was in a position to make a significant one?

How did he oppose the war from within the Pentagon?7/20/2006 10:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|I have a reaction when someone telegraphs that they "have a surprise coming" instead of just surprising us. I imagine the idea is to generate more conversation prior to the event, but he sets himself up for possibility of disappointment.

At any rate, Framer is probably in the ballpark with either a visit or endorsement of some significance. Jeff is going to have to hit a huge home run to go up against all of the singles, doubles, triples, and HR's that Weiss, and especially Giffords, have been smacking into the field.7/20/2006 10:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Democrats can win this seat if their candidate sounds reasonable and appealing on ALL issues, not just Iraq. We will need to keep our voters in the fold and also attract independents and Republicans unhappy either with their nominee, or with the direction of the national party, or both. Given the likely choice of Graf and the national purge of moderate or liberal Republicans, the chances of a Democrat winning CD8 (which IS still a District where Republicans have a sizable lead in voter registration!) are all the more plausible.

The "cut and run" argument is not going to work because most voters are already opposed to the war and feel that it was a mistake to get into Iraq. Where they are hesitant about trusting Democrats is with regard to the overall issue of national security. That is why we talk about how the Iraq war has made that country into a breeding ground for terrorists and how the cost of the war has diverted resources from the global war on terror.

I realize that the Paul Hackett phenomenon and has caused many folks to believe that it will take Democrats who are veterans to beat the GOP on this issue, but that is far-fetched, especially since Hackett lost his race in Ohio! Latas does not have the resources to win and his "angry man" rhetoric comes off as shrill and partisan, which makes him less likely to attract voters outside of his camp. I hope that his supporters, who are clearly dedicated and hardworking, will bring their energy and passion to the camp of the eventual nominee, but I don't see Latas as someone who can unite Democrats or attract voters from outside the party, no matter what surprise he is set to spring on us.7/20/2006 11:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|Rex,

Have you been visiting Patty's Mars bases? Most the Deocrats all agree that the party is in dire need of change. Latas is being heard by these people.


What you see as hits and runs I'm seeing as strike outs.7/20/2006 01:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Tedski, jacking this thread for a second.

The DNC is going to be voting on a state to be slipped between Iowa and New Hampshire in an attempt to improve the Pres Selection Process ...

The AZ Dem Party has been pushing this HARD for several months and now it seems that Arizona is a finalist from what I can gather.

I put a diary up on DailyKos hoping to get some exposure to this nationally and would love if all the local bloggers could head over there, vote in the poll, recommend the diary, and discuss it some there!

The link is HERE

Now back to CD8 your daily does of CD8 Fighting! :)7/20/2006 01:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|I just got off the phone with his media director-Joe Pyritz and he said it's something that he doesn't think has been done by a political campaign in Tucson.

By the way Rex, would you like Jeff to be as meek as Patty and Gabby are? I really don't think you understand his candidacy very well, or you wouldn't be as ignorant to say the "angry man" bit.

I don't know if you have seen it Rex, but people are pissed at the direction this country is going. Jeff is just a reflection of that. It isn't an "angry man" thing as you claim it is-it's passion-something Giffords has no clue about.7/20/2006 02:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|I wouldn't describe Patty's fundraising as striking out, and Giffords fundraising?!

Discount the various endorsements all you want, and some are bigger hits than others, but they are not strikes.

I like Jeff, but something really has to alter for him to stand a chance on 9/12.

Nor do I think Graf will prevail in September. My prediction though not worth a nickel: It will be Giffords against Huffman and a nail-biter all the way to the end.7/20/2006 02:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chris|W|P|Giffords would beat Huffman. She has all the passion he lacks and more money. I don’t think Steve even knows how to campaign.7/20/2006 02:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|George-

I would not describe either Gabby or Patty as "meek," nor would I call someone who I have never met in person "ignorant," as you do me. However, I used the term "angry man" after hearing Jeff at a house party, hearing him on the radio and then seeing him live at the Nucleus Club debate. He plays well to partisans that agree with him, but that doesn't translate to support across this broad and diverse district.

I understand the concerns and issues that drive his candidacy and know that the eventual nominee will have to address them to build a broad coaltion, but Jeff doesn't strike me as someone who can speak persuasively or articulately on all the issues, nor does he convey an ability to appeal to those outside the populist Left, especially those for whom Iraq is the main issue in this campaign.

Make a case for his ability to win in November in CD8 that sounds plausible, resist the temptation to engage in name-calling when you do so, tell your candidate to lower the tone of his voice and you may sell some folks outside of the DFA/PDA wing of the party!7/20/2006 06:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|I'm going to guess it has something to do with the Web. Purely a hunch.7/20/2006 09:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Chris,

If Graf wins 9/12, Patty or Gabby are in great shape. These "meek" ladies will eat the kook for breakfast.

Huffman is more slippery. If he prevails 9/12, he will get all the kook votes (what else are they going to do?) plus more central folks. I am not in a position to say anything about his campaigning, but I hope you're right.

Hmm, Jane, hadn't thought about the surprise being a web thing.

Are you Stacy?7/20/2006 09:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|Rex,

Did you hear what Mike Hellon said about Jeff Latas on the Emil Franzi radio program this last week? Here is the case why Latas is the one.

Mike wouldn't let Franzi know who he would like to run against, but did say his most difficult opponent woudl be Latas.7/20/2006 09:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|Looks like Latas has posted the NC event. Anyone that wants to see Latas answer the "support" question which is directly followed by the GG Patty exchange which Latas very classically closed, hear it is.

http://www.jefflatas.com/unity.wmv7/20/2006 10:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chris|W|P|x4mr,

what else are they going to do?

How about fill in the little circle next to Kyl’s name and any other conservative candidates (the governors race will be fine either way.) Vote against all proposals by the tobacco nazis, mail in the ballot, and then get ready for deer hunting.

If a Democrat wins in November, she will have to run again every two years in a Republican district. Eventually she would loose to a solid conservative candidate.7/20/2006 10:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|Rex,

Latas needs to lower his tone? Maybe you need to review the video EB posted. I thought I saw a passionate guy that is in this for you, me and everyone in this district. He's passionate, but lower his tone? Sounds like your the angry guy who's favorite is now threatened by someone that is running for reasons other then self interest.

I'm glad Jeff is running. He is no doubt doing this for selfless reasons and it shows.7/20/2006 10:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|Wow Rex,

Just reread your post on the "angry man" Jeff Latas.

Let's let the readers take a look. Go to his event page,

and scroll down to past events. He posted his opening, the fight, and his closing. I guess I don't see what your painting. He is emotional and very sincere. I don't see a wacked out madman like you want others to think in your discription. It's on the site, go check it out and most should get the real feel for Latas.

Angry, maybe. Concerned, obsolutely. I think he can win over more then the Democratic arm of the Democratic Party.7/20/2006 11:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|REX--I read that the DSCC effectively "cut off" Hackett's money supply from the big money Democrats. When you are talking about Giffords and Weiss hits and HRs, are you referring to their fundraising, or are you referring to innovative policy proposals, or what?

ART--I don't think Jeff was working for the Pentagon in the late summer/fall of 2002 [but I'm not certain]. Also, do you seriously think that he could have made a difference working inside the Pentagon? My impression is that there were others within the government who felt the war and the rationale were bullshit but they were ignored/squelched.

KRALMAJALES--One thing that is obvious is that what we've been doing in Iraq for the past 3 years has definitely NOT been working. The violence is getting worse. It has been indicated that 2500+ U.S. soldeirs have been killed and almost 20,000 injured. The numbers of Iraqis killed or injured are probably 10 or 20 times those numbers. [There are also kidnappings of civilians by criminals going on regularly.] Our being there may be keeping the lid on full civil war; however, it also is highly likely that our very presence there, our occupation is fueling/exacerbating the problem and helping the recruitment of more terrorists. Redeployment outside the cities and then redeployment to just outside the country is not a panacea--and it has not been presented as a panacea. There are no "good" options. I don't see our staying within the country, as we are doing, stabilizing to the country--unless we send 300,000+ troops there. Does anyone want to do that???
I detect some populism in Jeff's message and populism cuts across party lines.

Obviously being a veteran does not innoculate one from being Swift Boated or accused of being "weak" on defense; however, it sure doesn't hurt to be a veteran when so many residents in CD 8 are veterans [AZ Daily Star reported 19% veterans in CD 8--unknown if the 19% is registered voters or not].
I'm optimistic that whichever Democrat wins the primary will have a VERY good chance of winning the general. The main policy idea I hear from Republicans is to "cut taxes"--almost a panacea--How the hell can anyone be viewed as responsible/statepersonlike AND propose cutting MORE taxes when the Republicans (who are in full control of the executive and legislative branches) have been running $200-$400 billion deficits since they came to power, AND whose budget has projected deficits as far out into the future as the eye can see?7/21/2006 06:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|Tedski,

Graf is a chicken hawk,like most Republican politicians. As far as anyone can tell, he never served, his wife never served, his son never served.


According to his Web site, Jeff Latas was in the Pentagon from 1994-1998, during the Clinton Administration, between his four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch, which were, at the time, working.


Thanks for the heads-up about the video. It's over on YouTube as well:


Wow. No wonder the other campaigns didn't want to post it. It really makes Jeff Latas look very reasonable and the others look petty.7/21/2006 07:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Smiling big this morning. I am enjoying the "Jeff rises above it all" bait and switch going on now. I am especially enjoying it because many of his supporters on the blogs blistered Giffords for months on the Dataport, on Gilamonsterville, and on here.

Giffords so called attack was a defense after being hammered and hammered wrongly for a single committe vote and stretches of the truth to label her as corrupt. It was the Weiss campaign doing the attacking first and well Giffords responded.

I can't imagine, as passionate as Jeff is, that he would do any different. In fact, many of you claim that he will be the "one" to answer the Republicans in the fall.

I guess we shall see.7/21/2006 08:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|CC Burro:

On Iraq...I think your post is thoughtful and we have discussed this before, but I am not sure that his plan will stand up to scrutiny against the Republicans in the fall...and for even Americans. World events today even change things a bit more.

Where will we pull out to? Turkey? Jordan? Egypt? Given what is happening now in Lebanon, I am not sure we are going to be welcome very many places....not because we are hated, but because of our association with Israel. Furthermore the rise of the Shiite in Iraq (basically our doing by ridding the Sunni of power)...its linkage to Iran...and the rise of Shiite power in other places in the middle east are unintended consequences of this war that we now need to deal with.

I agree. I can't see us adding more troops or trying to win this war. But the complexity of "what next" makes any campaign promise of what anyone will do a marked fantasy of dramatic proportions.7/21/2006 08:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|I thought that Giffords had a good response until she went and did the personal attack, almost in the same breath after she said that Democrats don't do that thing here. Then WHAM, the Fox News comment. If she would have kept her pie hole shut and not made the Fox News Reporter comment, she would have had an excellent response. Guess she needs a little more coaching.7/21/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|Rex,

What name calling did George do? I can't see any in this post.7/21/2006 09:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Anyone go to the Tea thing yesterday? Would be interested in what happened. The Daily Star reported on it, but what do they ever say?

By hits and HR's I simply refer to those components of the race that can be measured in solid fact, which is money (raised, on hand, from where, who, etc), announced endorsements, paid staff, and to the extent it can be gauged, volunteer hours and activity.

Of course that isn't all that matters, but the other stuff quickly becomes opinion.

The 4:25 fightback video caught me by surprise. Impressive and a sign of new thinking. Taking a week to piece together the 8:18 NC video to frame it to Latas advantage was also more sophisticated than I would have predicted, as was the quality of that footage. It must have been the high end camera dead center in the room, and folks that produced that clearly understand the power of the editing suite.

I have to hand it to Latas camp for some outside the box thinking. Maybe he does have a surprise.7/21/2006 01:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|The political landscape just changed and it remains to be seen what effect there will be on the CD8 election.

I am referring, of course, to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The one where they are "defending" themselves by destroying the infrastructure of an entire nation and targeting civilians to pay for a border skirmish initiated by Hezbollah.

Well, the initial "attack" on Israel may not look like a "9-11" but it may as well have been because the neo-cons are going to use it as a "catalyzing" event to justify a war with Iran. There's no question about it. The neo-cons are literally being reborn after the debacle in Iraq and all their other failures. They are making the case, apparently successfully, that Iran is behind the July 12 Hezbollah border attack.

Well, we know the neo-cons want the war with Iran and that the nuclear fuel issues have not convinced Americans that war is the only answer. Well, things have changed. The neo-cons have a window of opportunity to exploit given that Americans get mostly pro-Israel news from the corporate media. Also, no one seems to be overly concerned about the Lebanese civilians who have as much control over Hezbollah as we have over George Bush. This is a better case for war with Iran than enriching uranium because Iran, obviously, is the root cause of instability in the region and democracy cannot flourish with Iran in control.

I'm not sure how all the campaign rhetoric will change but you can bet it will because the neo-cons are back in full force.

Weiss and Giffords might look a bit overwhelmed by it all, not to mention Graf and the rest of the Republican herd.

I could be wrong, of course. Maybe here in Arizona we'll still be immigrant bashing in September, who knows?

Either way, Jeff Latas is the right person to represent CD8. I'm more convinced of that than ever.7/21/2006 01:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|liza,

you could have saved a lot of time and just written

Go Jeff!7/21/2006 01:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Liza,

Why is Jeff the best for this new world problem? I don't understand how military experience necessarily means foreign policy experience. If I was looking for a strategy to win a war, then by all means, but to end one with diplomacy? That takes advisors and in this one it will take each candidate a lot of help.7/21/2006 02:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This post will earn some loud cries I am sure, but I thought some would find it interesting.

Washington posts latest rating has this race at #3 nationally, but read on after what the Daily Fix says...it is even more interesting.

"3. Arizona's 8th District: There is a clear difference between the top two races on the Line and this one. The 8th went for President Bush by seven points in 2004 and no Democrat has represented the area since 1984. But,it is an open seat and, given the recent record of incumbents winning reelection, we simply can't vault any current member of Congress over this seat. Former state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords looks stronger and stronger in her primary race, methodically lining up establishment support, including Emily's List and the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees. Former state Rep. Randy Graf remains the most likely Republican nominee, but state Rep. Mike Huffman has the endorsement of Rep. Jim Kolbe (the current holder of the seat) and a huge cash advantage over Graf -- $413,000 to $51,000 at the end of June. (Previous ranking: 3 | Candidate Profiles/Links | AZ-08 Demographics)"

The post also talks about ratings of where the DCCC will place campaign efforts. Check this out:

"Here's a look at the markets where the DCCC has reserved time and how much time the committee asked for; the competitive district covered by that market is in parentheses.

* Tucson, 8 weeks (AZ-08)
* Denver, 6 weeks (CO-07)
* Hartford, 5 weeks (CT-02 and CT-05)
* Miami, 3 weeks (FL-22)
* West Palm Beach, 5 weeks (FL-22)
* Cedar Rapids, 10 weeks (IA-01 and IA-03)
* Evansville, 11 weeks (IN-08 and IN-09)
* Louisville, 6 weeks (IN-09 and KY-04)
* Indianapolis, 3 weeks (IN-09)
* Cincinnati, 6 weeks (KY-04)
* Charleston, 6 weeks (KY-04)
* Lexington, 6 weeks (KY-04)
* Albuquerque, 8 weeks (NM-01)
* Philadelphia, 4 weeks (PA-06, PA-07, PA-08)"

Be ready for a LOT of commercials folks...and this won't even be the candidate commmercials.7/21/2006 02:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...someone should tell the Post it is STEVE not Mike Huffman.7/21/2006 02:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|phx kid,
I needed to write all that. Although its tragic, its somewhat of a vindication for me because I made the Iran connection right away and no one seemed to agree. I said, "this will be used to justify a war with Iran." Now its all over Washington DC. Sorry you had to read all that, but here it is just for you - GO JEFF!

I am so distressed about what is going on in the Mideast that I am at a loss for words which is not usually the case for me. The US corporate media isn't using this terminology, but "civil war" is now often used to describe what is going on in Iraq. As you know, the death toll has been about 100 per day for the last two months. Now the Israeli invasion of Lebanon is more gas on the fire. If the neo-cons are successful, and things are going well for them right now, then we could be in another war with Iran within months. I'm predicting post election, much like the bombing of Fallujah right after the 2004 election.

Jeff is very knowledgeable and very articulate about US foreign policy in the Mideast. I believe he has the intelligence, knowledge, integrity, and compassion to be an excellent legislator and policy maker. I think that his understanding of what is happening in the Mideast is woefully lacking among policy makers who are already in Washington. Either they don't understand it or they have been bought off by special interests.

We have a lot of problems, I'm not denying that. I just happen to put the Mideast at the top of the list.7/21/2006 02:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Boo-Hoo:

Franzi had already said the same thing about Latas in his column in the Northwest Explorer some weeks ago, so Hellon was just repeating that line. The GOP would love to run against Latas because he could not attract the crossover support that Giffords has proven she can attract throughout her earlier races in the old LD13 and the current LD28. Sounds to me like Franzi and Hellon are trying to fill their own dance card!


In a GOP-majority district like CD8, the Democrat candidate MUST be able to hold the party together, attract most of the independents and get a certain number of dissatisfied Republicans to switch sides. Latas's appeal and agenda are too narrow to do that. Giffords has a record of winning over voters from all segments of the electorate, the resources to get her message out and a platform that will resonate with all voters except those on the far left or far right.7/21/2006 05:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Jeff Latas has a broad platform with positions addressing the Mideast, national security, immigration, disaster preparedness, health care, retirement security, veterans, education, energy policy, the environment, labor, election reform, civil rights, international trade, and media independence to name most of them.

I think that Jeff is best known for speaking out against the invasion and occupation of Iraq prior to announcing his candidacy. However, Jeff has addressed most domestic issues of concern as well as US foreign policy in the Mideast. In my estimation, this is a very broad and comprehensive platform.

However, I'm just now starting to get out and work my precinct. Man, its been hot. I could start another conversation about what I hear from voters but maybe later on that. For now, let's just say it doesn't jive with what I read on these blogs.7/21/2006 08:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|x4mr,

Thanks for the good PR for the Latas campaign, but I don't know that they deserve your wonderful kudos for video editing.

I was there.

Their video doesn't seem edited to me. That's pretty much what happened.

If you think this makes Jeff Latas look good, that's great, because it's exactly how he looked to 350 people.

You won't see any other campaign posting their videos because they know that this is exactly how it went down, and they don't have anything further to add to it.7/21/2006 09:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Blue,

You're right. Somehow my memory played the event in a way that had me think they moved stuff around, but when I watched again, I realized the editing was minimal. All they did was cut the delay between Patty and Gabby, which was appropriate.

My brain still tells me the Bill Johnson stuff was at the very end, but apparently it wasn't.

Something else I noticed was signage placement. Don't know if it was intentional, but Jeff had his sign behind him so that footage of his speaking included it in the background. Smart.

I have no idea to what extent online video will impact the election, but yes, will concede that Jeff is way ahead of the others on this front so far.

Of course, we all know there are other very critical fronts.7/20/2006 04:54:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|For those that have been watching, Steve Huffman has had television ads up for a couple of days now. Huffman has the cash to run a better race than his main opponents, Mike Hellon and Randy Graf, but still needs to introduce himself to the voters. The ad (which is unavailable on his website) is standard "Chamber of Commerce" Republican fare: I lowered taxes and balanced budgets. Also, he mentions supporting the "War on Terror," a brave stand that risks alienating the Republican primary voters that support al-Quaeda. The ad also mentions Jim Kolbe's endorsement of Huffman. It does not feature it though, it merely flashes up a quote from Kolbe with his name barely visible. I would have thought he would feature this more prominently, but either he doesn't think this is going to mean much, or he is saving Kolbe for later. The ad doesn't feature "red meat" for Republican voters concerned with immigration the way that Hellon's ads do. Nor does it include any attacks on Graf, supposedly Huffman has polling that shows Graf vulnerable on a number of issues. But, this is a biography ad, and these are often free of specific issue proposals or attacks. He's got plenty of money to run those later. Does the "Chamber of Commerce" message carry the day this year? Hellon seems to have abandoned it entirely, although, despite what one poll supposedly said, it didn't seem to work. Graf seems to be reaching the other way, he hired as his new campaign manager a former staffer with the National Federation of Independent Business. Graf didn't raise as much as Huffman, and I have yet to see a Graf ad, but those in the know still talk about him as a front runner. Does Huffman's money mean he will be able to define Graf? Or, have people already made up their mind about him and this is a question of Huffman making himself the alternative? If Huffman is the alternative, are there enough moderate voters that will be so excited about Huffman that they show up?|W|P|115339861929232253|W|P|Huffman on the Teevee|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/20/2006 06:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|The question is will Graf be able to define Huffam?

Steve has a record and it’s one of big spending, status quo in education, pro-abortion, do-nothing on the border, wish-washy on the 2nd amendment. Talk about vulnerable.7/20/2006 07:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Status quo on education? You may want to go back and check on what he tried to do to the desegregation funds.7/20/2006 08:09:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This is going to be a fascinating race. I am not sure what Huffman has to do here. Grafs supporters seem to be vigilant and the border is the biggest issue here for Republicans. I wonder if the Chamber message goes very far these days since Republicans in our present Congress have built up deficits and even government programs. While things can change, a lot of Gallop polling tends to be showing the moderate part of the Republican party in the doldrums and even not so happy with their party. Will they stay home? Frankly, they normally stay home in primaries anyway. So what this tells me is that Republicans candidates should REALLY move to the right in this race...not that they wouldn't in any primary...anyway.

Another interesting issue to me is the "tough on the border" ads by Hellon. Originally, there was concern by Click and the gang that Hellon might peel moderates away from Huffman. Maybe still true, but will he also peel off conservatives from Graf on this new tough on border stances. Those conservatives concerned about the people surrounding Graf might find a new home in Hellon.

Last, the Munsil effect. I have been saying this for a long time and few have engaged me on it. The GOP primary ticket will also have a Gov. race on the top of the ticket. Munsil supporters are pretty damned conservative and he seems in really good shape for the nomination. Who will his supporters vote for in this primary? Will he endorse someone?

Best!!!!7/20/2006 08:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Framer|W|P|Steve is definately in the game, but he will need to run a perfect campaign from here forward. His problem isn't so much Graf as it is Hellon. Had he spent money before now, he could possibly have forced Hellon out of the race, now Hellon is set to capitolize on any attacks and attrition that Steve can score on Graf. If Hellon scores more than 15% in the primary, it will be very hard for Steve to win.

Additionally, Steve has a lot of money, but almost no grassroots whatsoever. He has been a no-show at many in not most of the handshake and baby-kissing events that are used to gain and reward grassroots, possibly reenforcing his image as distant and arrogant among the party faithful. At the events that he has attended, he has failed to bring many visible supporters with him (possibly the reason why he has skipped subsequent events).

So the two big questions are:

1. Can a seven week media blitz trump solid grassroots support in a primary?

2. Is a border enforcement first policy truly the overriding issue of the GOP primaries? If it is, Steve will not win. If other issues are just as important, advantage Huffman.7/20/2006 08:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Framer:

Good qusestions...and I would love to know your thoughts on my points above as well.

My thoughts on your questions:

1. Can a seven week media blitz trump solid grassroots support in a primary?

I don't think so honestly. It will do a lot to raise his name rec. in the district no doubt, but he will have to either raise turnout in a Republican primary to get moderates out (which is going to be very hard according to what polls are saying now) OR he will have to move voters from Graf and Hellon to him. Equally hard without good attack ads and making himself reasonable to conservatives.

2. Is a border enforcement first policy truly the overriding issue of the GOP primaries? If it is, Steve will not win. If other issues are just as important, advantage Huffman.

Everything I am hearing from polling (which can change overnight) is that border enforcement is THE issue for Republicans...even in primaries in Iowa. Remember it was used effectly in the race to replace Cunningham. So where will that RNC money go and what will be the plan for this primary?

What other issues distinguish Huffman fron Graf or Hellon? Hellon can claim to be as moderate and now tough on the border as well. The only thing I can think of to distinquish them is the argument that Graf is too extreme...and doesn't that play into the hands of social and border conservatives populating this primary?7/20/2006 08:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...one thing I just thought of. If Huffman can assemble a machine the likes of what won the RTA plan in Tucson, then he could go hard after early ballots. Getting the lazy non-primary voter to vote by sending the thing in.

He'd have the money to do that.7/20/2006 10:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Sorry Tedski – read “opposed to vouchers” in place of “status quo on education” Either way he was not a leader on this issue.7/20/2006 10:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Framer|W|P|The problem with attack ads for Steve is that he already has a bad reputation in this area. Any hits that are devistating to Graf, will still look poorly on him as well.

In a two person race, going negative may have been effective. However, Steve allowed Hellon to position himself in the center between himself and Graf (although politically speaking Steve and Mike have just about the same stance on most issues). Hellon would receive the votes moved from Graf and the votes of those disgusted with Steve for going negative.

It was foolish at best for Steve to allow Mike to define himself unopposed for the past couple of months, arrogant at worst if he thought that Hellon no longer mattered without the Kolbe endorsement.

Also remember that Graf's "extreme" views measure up to prop 200 which passed 57% (I believe) in this district in the General (not just Republicans) and with the Sensenbrenner Immigration Bill which is a huge winner with the Republican base nationally. He is solid pro-life and traditional marriage. Huffman is weak on all of these issues and any attacks on Graf could be seen by stong supporters of these causes as attacks on them, which could certainly energize Graf's base more than diminish it.

Huffman made some poor campaign decisions early on and it will be interesting to see if money can bail him out. If it does, expect primary campaign strategy in this District to change dramitically in the future and be more based on fundraising rather than campaign events.7/20/2006 02:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Roger,

As usual a good post with thoughtful points. The Munsil effect? As best I know Len is sitting out the CD8 race. Either way the contested Governor’s race is a plus for one candidate, Graf. Why?

First Goldwater is running on the border issue and has appeared many times with Randy. Don enthusiasts will overwhelmingly go for the original Strong Border candidate, Randy Graf.

As to Munsil his base is the evangelical vote. They will be drawn to the only pro-life candidate among the front-runners, Randy Graf.

Huffman is going to need every penny of his money.7/20/2006 02:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|The Phoenix Business Journal has a report on Dennis Hastert coming to visit the border this weekend.


Any word/speculation on which candidates will join him (if any)?7/20/2006 03:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|I completely agree with the points made by Phx Kid. The numbers don't look good for either Hellon or Huffman. It stands to reason that the 43% Graf got against Kolbe two years ago will stick with him for the most part. The two major candidates (Hellon and Huffman) and the two minor candidates (Antenori and Jenkins) who oppose Graf do nothing but split the "anyone but Randy" vote.

If those in the GOP who oppose a Graf nomination in CD8 had been smart, they would have united behind ONE candidate to go against him. Since Hellon and Huffman couldn't do that, they can go ahead and start writing their concession speeches.

It is also obvious that Graf best represents the majority views in today's GOP. Huffman is getting punked on conservative blogs and would be targeted like Hershberger if he were still in LD26. Hellon got tossed out of his party post by the right-wingers a few years ago.7/20/2006 03:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Rex

Mike Hellon should not yet be counted out. Let’s say that Huffman does not gain traction. There is still time for some anybody-but-Graf money to flow to Mike. He has stayed above the fray and already has the party stalwarts behind him. No one really liked Steve, they just thought he could beat Randy. If that does not appear to be happening don’t look for a lot of loyalty to Steve.

Steve may have a few vulnerabilities but for the record he would not have been targeted like Hershberger. The simple truth is that Pete is not a Republican by any definition of the word. He does not even rise to the level of “in name only.” Dear old Pete is a Classic Liberal. He should have switched parties when he had a chance but now his time is up.

http://www.carolsomers.com/7/18/2006 06:44:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Bryers Cartoon You know the campaign is getting serious...Patty Weiss has now enlisted the talents of her father in her campaign for congress. Weiss's father, Duane Bryers, is a well-known and respected western artist (and is less well known for his buxom pin-up girl, Hilda). Byers sent something I consider a first: a handwritten e-mail. The cartoony appeal is for donations to put "Patty back on TV." Not only is the cutsey e-mail eye catching, especially when you consider the dozens of samish appeals that clog the in-box of even the most casual activist, but it emphasizes something that only a couple of candidates in this race can claim: strong family ties to Tucson. Gabrielle Giffords's family has been here for three generations, and they have some measure of local fame themselves. In addition to being a businessman, her grandfather "Giff" Giffords was a well known broadcast personality. One former co-worker told me back in 2000 that she voted for her because she still remembered his "A Good Good Evening" sign-off. Her father was also a prominent businessman, and her mother is a well regarded art restorer. Although not exactly "Tucson ties," Bill Johnson (do I have to mention him?) has ancestral ties to the district. His ancestors founded St. David, although he himself was born in Pinal County. Of course, my family has them all beat, but I won't get into that.|W|P|115323227727456669|W|P|My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/18/2006 07:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Gotta admit, that _is_ a cute cartoon from her dad. Clever idea all around.7/18/2006 08:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|I think we should decide the winner by who can sing the "Lucky Wishbone Theme", but not just any one the California Rock version, or the one who can sing the "Hot Bagle Bakery Thems", better yet lets have them do it @ Sanchez Burritto Company, or at Gordos. That should clear up the winner.7/18/2006 09:09:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Cute cartoon. I bet it's effective, too.

In other news, Jeff Latas has just been endorsed by Marshall K-Gun.7/18/2006 09:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I fear it might be too little too late on this one. The ads are going to start soon and there is also limited ad space to buy...espeically in the weeks before the election. Lets think about it...the number of open commericial spots.

There will be those in the Republican primary (Gov. and CD8) buying up ad space, the other candidates in CD8, as well as the stray ad for Nov. from Kyl and Pederson. Oh yeah, and there are actual products to hock as well.

The ad costs must go up around this time too. So, my guess is that people must be purchasing ad time now and trying to get that space.

A wise campaign veteran might tell me this. Is there anything FEC regulatory wise that directs stations to apportion space and give equal access to buy ad time? A hypothetical. Could a candidate theoretically buy all the space if they had a Billion bucks?7/18/2006 09:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Ah, but which Marshall Kgun? Burt Oien or Bob Love?7/18/2006 09:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Tedski: Bob Love, of course.

Roger: I believe broadcasters are required to sell political ads at their lowest inventory rate. They can't jack up prices just before the election.7/18/2006 09:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|I too have to agree it is cute….

That said, it really has not substance other than a proud father wanting her daughter to succeed, and what father doesn’t want that? BUT, what’s the underlying message? Patty deserves to be in Congress because she was once a local TV personality? Sorry to sound like such a curmudgeon , but what happened to Patty’s campaign being about issues?

No harm in a little fun in politics, but I’m just saying…7/18/2006 10:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|In Patty's defense, this isn't exactly a persuasion piece being sent out to voters, this is a fundraising appeal to people that probably already support her campaign.7/18/2006 10:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Yep, I agree with Ted. She is going to need every penny, unless she dips into her own funds.7/18/2006 11:09:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|This is a SMART email ... what a great way to break through the clutter of all those other annoying democratic emails that people get three or four of a week.

Honestly, I'm not being snide - really clever idea.7/18/2006 02:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Cute e-mail. Everyone loves a proud parent.

BTW, what is Patty Weiss' real name and why does she go by this one as opposed to her maiden name or her (current?) husband's name?7/18/2006 06:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|Nice cartoon, that'll probably work very well.7/19/2006 06:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|Patty has spoken in public about how her father left her with her mentally ill mother when she was very young, and she basically had to raise herself. It's good to see that he's back in her life.

Her name, before she changed it back to Weiss back in January, was Gelenberg.7/19/2006 08:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Patty talks about the name thing on her campaign FAQ. The whole thing's a good read, actually.7/19/2006 08:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Brad Poole|W|P|CALLING ALL BLOGGERS - I am not a troll, but I am a reporter, which is probably close for many of you. I am working on a blogging story for the Tucson Citizen (insert slings and arrows here). I am looking for bloggers' (and blog readers') views on blogging. Since it's for publication, I must have names, ages and occupations. We can't use anonymous sources normally. If anyone is interested, call me at 573-4585 (work) or 245-8425 (cell). THIS STORY IS RUNNING THURSDAY, JULY 20, SO I HAVE TO TALK TO YOU TODAY. TEDSKI - SORRY ABOUT THE INVASION, BUT I NEED YOUR PEOPLE.7/19/2006 11:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Brad,

You are posting for input on July 19 for a story that is going to run on July 20?

I assume you want a report on what bloggers think of blogging as opposed to what is actually happening on the blogs. If I wanted to report on what is happening, I'd read whatever is relevant and then write my report, crazy stuff and anonymous names and all.

Best of luck seeking input from folks from folks willing give names, ages, occupations, and I will look for your article.

I guess you can't quote me, but one remark is that blogs transcend the paradigm of traditional media and if you constrain yourself inside certain limitations, it will be a challenge to capture what is really taking place.

Another remark is that the anonymous nature of the participants creates a completely different conversation. If I supply name, age, occupation, I enter into a different conversation where I must manage all sorts of dynamics otherwise not involved. Some nobody called x4mr is whatever he posts. That’s it, no more no less, good or bad. But what if I am Chuck Huckelberry, or Mike Hein, or Sharon Bronson? I cease to be simply what I post.

Art (The Data Port) has expressed frustration regarding anonymity. This and other aspects of blogging have been well discussed at that blog. IMHO if you read some of the threads at Data Port (in particular one about the political blogosphere, but others as well) you will find some interesting material. I assume you are thinking in the political context since you posted here.

I won't talk up Tedski. He already gets enough praise, and he's great for a good laugh when you're feeling down.7/19/2006 09:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Back on subject--

I like it! The cartoon is appealing.7/17/2006 04:37:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Some of you may remember what I consider a rather ugly incident in a Republican primary last election, when Colette Rosati decided to show that she was pro-family by attacking her opponents for being childless. One was an unmarried woman, the other was a married man whose wife had had several miscariages and a hystorectomy. This ended up being an embarassment to the Rosati campaign, but being a Republican primary, it seemed to have no effect on her candidacy. Given that it worked so well before, it looks like they are trying it again. At a recent candidate forum, Gary Tupper and Mike Harris brought up the issue of Janet Napolitano being unmarried. I guess they can claim that her lack of a "family" means she doesn't know what families struggle with. Of course, given what the mostly married legislative majority does to working families on a daily basis, this doesn't seem to be much of a theory. (By the way, before Harris gives anyone a lecture on supporting children, shouldn't he take care of that child support situation?) To his credit, Don Goldwater didn't take the bait and chose not to comment on the Governor's marital status. Len Munsil chose not to comment, but saved it for his blog:
As you will see from the article, I was asked at a news conference months ago to comment on this same issue. As I said at the time, while marriage and parenthood provide me with unique experiences and perspective, this campaign should be waged on the issues, not someone's marital status.
To be fair to Munsil, he called the tone of the remarks "deeply disturbing," but then he accompanies this with something to the effect of "by the way...I am married..." Munsil is a smart political operator, so excuse me for being cynical about his motives here. It seems to be disingenuous to condemn Tupper and Harris, then try to make the same point they did.|W|P|115318130490998358|W|P|You Might Well Think That, But I Couldn't Possibly Comment|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/17/2006 05:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Your commentary on this is way better then mine.7/17/2006 07:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Munsil is the likely GOP nominee and, given his past pursuits, we can expect him to run a classic conservative campaign. That not only means frequent lunges at the hot buttons that get the red-meat right wingers riled up; it also means that he will get nasty when it gets down to the wire.

Right now, Munsil is trying to establish himself with the average voter that has no clue who he is, both in the GOP and amongst the general electorate. That means that the real down and dirty stuff is saved for the true believers who wouldn't consider voting for Janet in any instance. Munsil doesn't want to turn off the suburbanites and "moderates" that shunned Matt Salmon four years ago, so he'll keep the ugly tactics under wraps...until they're needed at crunch time. Ask John and Cindy McCain what that felt like in South Carolina back in 2000.

The thing that scares me a tad about Munsil is that he looks like a choirboy and is an erudite and informed speaker. If immigration and the anti-gay marriage initiative become key topics of discussion among voters AND a recession hits near election time, he could play to both economic and social conservatives.

I'm hoping to hear more from Janet about the values she has backed most of the time as governor...and tough talk from her about what Len Munsil's Arizona would look like. She should also be blunt about what her vetoes of extreme GOP bills have saved us from enduring. The Clintonesque game of triangulation she practiced with the budget (backing tax cuts and vouchers) won't mean squat against a silver-tongued Republican who can promise voters much more of such snake oil!7/17/2006 08:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|By the way Ted, how come you are introducing bills into the state legislature to ban cell phone usage while driving?7/17/2006 09:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mexilina|W|P|LOL! I am convinced that you will win because people think you are already in office (don't know what that will do to Tom, though.. maybe you should start making appearances so that he'll get some press).

;) I love ya, Tom ;)7/17/2006 10:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Munsil claims he is pro-family...

In March I wrote a post entitled A simple reason some women choose abortion-- anything else is too expensive in which I related the results of a study done by the Guttmacher institute that found a clear link between income level and access to health insurance and abortion-- specifically, uninsured poor women were choosing abortions because having a baby delivered at a hospital would be prohibitively expensive, even if it were completely healthy.

I then wrote,

As such, I would like to ask conservatives if they would object to a very limited but very complete universal coverage bill: a bill which covers all hospital, physician, technician and prescription costs associated with pregnancy, delivery and if necessary complications directly arising from pregnancy and birth, including to correct birth defects and any complications arising to the mother. Of course, abortion would be unaffected by the bill and would still cost what it does today

It seems that if Republicans are really pro-life, then they will immediately jump on this opportunity to help women who can't afford to have a child, to have one. The Guttmacher study certainly suggests that it would prevent quite a few abortions.

So, how about it, Len?7/17/2006 11:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Great triangulation eli. We’ll keep mutilating unborn babies until the Republicans support universal health care.7/19/2006 12:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:

Except you have no logic in your post. It isn't 'us' who 'mutilate unborn babies' (as you call abortion) it is women who can't afford not to. As the study pointed out, some of them don't even want abortions, but they do it purely for cost reasons. What 'we' (I assume you mean liberals) have to do with it, I don't know-- it's not like we have a direct line to these women and are ordering them to get abortions (as your post seems to imply that you believe).

But I guess if you want to ignore the facts and shoot the messenger, that is your right.7/19/2006 03:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|as if anyone doubted...

The Len Munsil Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge Express rolled into Bullsh-t, I mean, Bullhead City the other day.

Check out the last sentence of this article:
articles/2006/07/19/news/top_story/top1.tx7/19/2006 07:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Oh and I figured out where the title of the blog post came from: The House of Cards from the BBC political drama.7/17/2006 07:05:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I saw Robert Novak on Meet the Press yesterday, and I remembered the time that I met the guy. I served as a volunteer at the 1992 Democratic Convention, and I was assigned to "guard" various room entrances to make sure that only the "right" people got in. Most of the nights, I was on duty at a suite that was only open to Senators, Representatives, Governors and "big city mayors." Oddly, "big city" included Atlanta, but I wasn't allowed to let in then Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, even though his city was bigger. There was a street entrance to the suite that I was supposed to check credentials at one night. We were only supposed to let in the dignitary and one guest, and absolutely no press. Because we were right on the street, all sorts of people walked by who thought this was an entrance that didn't have a long line, so we had to turn them away. A governor came by, if my memory serves, it was Wyoming Governor Mike Sullivan (and if I remember right, he was with Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus). Sullivan was, for some reason, hanging with Eleanor Clift. "Governor, I can let you in, but I can't let her in," I told him. "Well, whah not?" "Well, I am not supposed to let press in." "Aww, she's not press, she's mah waaf," Sullivan drawled. Clift smiled like a cheerleader trying to be coy while the quarterback asks her to the homecoming dance. I thought, this woman has suffered too long at the hands of John McLaughlin and Fred Barnes. "Oh, I was mistaken, I'm sorry, she can come in." Clift thanked me. Then, almost immediately, comes Robert Novak. He tries to walk right by us. "I'm sorry Mr. Novak, no press allowed." "You let Eleanor Clift in!" "Is that who that was?" The guy that was helping me started laughing. Novak stormed off. I was able to cut out a bit early that night and I made it back to my room in time to see Capital Gang, which was done from the convention floor every night. That night Novak said that this was the worst staffed convention he had ever seen.|W|P|115314711392290683|W|P|The Time I Met Robert Novak|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/17/2006 08:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Chris|W|P|Tedski

This is too rich. Check out Munsil. To paraphrase. “My opponents have attacked the governor for being unmarried and childless. I think it is awful they have attached her for being unmarried and childless, though I am married and have many children, which gives me certain insights on life that the unmarried and childless governor does not have. I strongly condemn the attacks on the governor personal life made by my opponents. Did I forge to mention that the governor is unmarried and childless, which I think is irrelevant in this race so I will not mention it again.

http://www.lenmunsil.com/2006/07/out_of_bounds.php7/17/2006 09:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Well said, Chris. If he really didn't want it to be an issue, he wouldn't have bothered to make any comment a la Donnie.

Munsil will play this "above the fray" nice guy bullsiht and then appear in every ad with his wife and gaggle of kids. It's the same trick these idiots play with every opponent who is gay or who they want to imply is gay.

I say, if you bring the wife and kids in like that, they're fair game. Let's see their report cards. Ask their classmates about them. Dig for dirt.7/17/2006 05:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Children are never fair game until they turn 18. After that only whatever they do afterwards is fair game.

Spouse is okay sometimes.7/17/2006 09:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Geez, I tell what I thought was a neat story...and you guys change the subject.7/18/2006 05:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|It was the best story ever told in the history of the world Ted. I am in awe that you did whatever was in the story. Shall I just worship you now or is this enough sarcasm? :D7/16/2006 08:29:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Gen. Wesley Clark, after being asked if he would support the nominee in the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut (from Daily Kos):
I am a proud member of the Democratic Party, and I believe it is our party's responsibility to support the will of the Democratic primary voters in Connecticut. I personally look forward to supporting the candidate CT voters elect as the Democratic nominee. Though, as an aside, I must say I find it ironic that Senator Lieberman is now planning a potential run as an independent after he continually questioned my loyalty to the Democratic Party during the 2004 presidential primary.
|W|P|115310712718861023|W|P|Wesley Clark on Joe Lieberman|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/17/2006 06:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Yeah, Lieberman seems to feel he's entitled to the seat. I have no sympathy for him, and hope they eject him.

If he runs as an independent, though, it does make it likely the Republican candidate would win. Since Joe is a Republican in Dem clothing, though, it doesn't matter that much.7/17/2006 07:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TooBlue4U|W|P|Lieberman has never been a progressive and he's now a victim of a highly-partisan period where the "democratic wing of the Democratic party" has finally decided to nominate a real Democrat. I won't be sorry to see him go. I just hope the Democrat who wins the primary also wins the general elex. I think Joe should just back out if he loses the primary because running as an "independent" will probably split Demo votes and ensure victory for the GOP. I'll be sick to my stomach if that happens. The importance of the upcoming election is to take the House back from the GOP.7/17/2006 09:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|too blue, how does the Connecticut Senate race "take the House back from the GOP"?7/17/2006 09:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|I think he means the "Upper House," as opposed to the "Lower House."7/17/2006 10:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|The Democrats should support the Democratic nominee...PERIOD! If that is lamont, so be it, but Lieberman is hardly a closet Republican! Look beyond his vote on Iraq and you see a person who has been a loyal Democrat for decades. Why should he be drummed out of the party because so many differ with him on that issue? Aren't we acting just like the Republicans who are going after Hershberger and Hellon in Arizona LD26? Shouldn't there be room in our party for ALL points of view on Iraq and other issues?

Besides, current polling indicates that Lieberman would WIN if he ran as an independent, not thrown the seat to the GOP. Even that is not so bad because he would caucus with the Democrats. That would be the same as Jim Jeffords, the former Republican (and now independent) Vermont Sebator who left his party because his views were no longer heard or welcomed in a party he had belonged to for decades!7/16/2006 08:20:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Just a couple of things that I noticed. I didn't want to write anything until I had talked to a person who had actually taped the debate. A couple of party wags had heard that Jeff Latas had equicovated at an appearance in Green Valley after a questioner asked him if he would support the winner of the Democratic primary. That was the rumor anyhow, so they wanted to ask Latas the question in front of a bigger audience. They asked, and he was nearly clear that he would, but he also voiced his displeasure that William Johnson was not invited to the debate and he needed to know more about him before he gave his full assurance that he would support any Democratic nominee. I don't understand why Latas would want to come to Johnson's defense, and why he would want to pretend that he doesn't know the real reasons for Johnson's campaign. There was one other strange thing that Latas said. He mentioned that he had seen Patty Weiss's internal polls. It was an interesting set of facts, showing how few Democratic voters named immigration as their top issue. It left me wondering, how the heck did Latas get a chance to see Weiss's internal numbers?|W|P|115310645311161239|W|P|Belated Notes on the Nucleus Club Debate|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/17/2006 12:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Because Frank wants Jeff to know exactly what the score is.7/17/2006 06:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Latas did mention Johnson, but also said someting about "he would support a real Democrat with real Democrat values".

That's a paraphrase, not an exact quote.

Anyhow, I suspect he was referring to Mr. Johnson but it _does_ give him wiggle room if, for some reason, he decides Weiss or Giffords doesn't meet his criteria.7/17/2006 09:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|Thank you for writing about last week’s Nucleus Club meeting and for putting the focus on the star of the show: Jeff Latas.

I do have a problem with your calling this a debate, though. It was a forum. There has not yet been a debate in this race, and I’m not sure why, except that the “party wags” as you call them seem a bit nervous about the whole idea. There was a bit of debate that erupted Thursday night, thanks to the courage of a few of the candidates.

How interesting that the “party wags” have focused so much on Latas. How interesting that they attempted to specifically paint him into a corner in public. But most interesting is that Latas exposed their hypocrisy in a polite, factual manner by showing that the Nucleus Club had no business demanding that anybody give blanket support to the Democratic nominee, when they had intentionally excluded a candidate who is on the ballot as a Democrat.

I applaud Jeff Latas for his integrity in refusing to commit to supporting a candidate he has not even met.

Patty Weiss cranked it up a notch when she said that the question was an obvious attempt to stifle debate. Touché.

And how interesting that you wonder how Jeff Latas obtained Patty’s “internal” poll results. It’s been obvious to even the casual observer that Jeff Latas gets along well with all the candidates, even Republicans, and especially Patty. Patty has been pretty open with publicizing her poll results, so I’m not sure why you think this one was an internal poll. I can see why she might not want to publicize too much the fact that Iraq is the number one issue amongst Democratic primary voters, because Jeff Latas obviously holds the high ground on that issue.7/17/2006 10:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Based on what you wrote it sound to me like he was implying he wouldn't pledge to support any dem, because in the off chance Johnson wins ...

if that was his intention - good answer. In fact if all the other candidates were like ABSOLUTELY! then they weren't thinking.7/17/2006 10:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Tedski,
I'm not sure what you're driving at here with this post. Are you trying to stir up some doubts about Latas now that Weiss and Giffords have pointed out some of each other's weaknesses?

I think that Latas just injected some accuracy into his reply about supporting the winner of the CD8 Democratic primary. I realize that accuracy is woefully lacking in most of what transpires in political campaigns. However, if Johnson is a Democratic candidate in this race (real reason notwithstanding), Latas gave an honest answer. Latas was not defending Johnson as you suggest, he was acknowledging that the guy is in the race.

Sorry to state the obvious, but that's all there is to this.7/17/2006 02:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|Brovo Col Latas.

I can hardly wait until someone post the video of this event. To bad I missed it.7/17/2006 03:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|I don't think you are going to see a video posted from this event.

Now someone might prove me wrong in the next 20 minutes, but I just posted at AZWatch about the lack of video from this event. There were six camcorders there, if not more.

What might be happening, and this is just speculation on my part, is that the campaigns have either spoken or not spoken into a certain understanding about what is good for the goose........

Unlike Willcox, this time every campaign has footage of the whole thing.

Regarding Latas remark, tend to agree with Liza in that he was pointing out a certain possibility and I gave him kudos for doing it. I might be wrong, but my interpretation of the thing about Johnson being invited was pure "political correctness."

I don't believe for a second that Latas does not know at least as much about Johnson as what was posted at Blog for AZ.7/20/2006 10:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Well, I stand corrected (it happens).

Latas has posted video. Just go to his events page and scroll down.7/16/2006 01:12:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In the last quarter, Sen. Harry Mitchell raised $561,654.15, while incumbent U. S. Rep. J. D. Hayworth raised $525,665.50. This still leaves Mitchell with less cash on hand ($666,476.15 vs. $1,049,710.60 for Hayworth), but one has to wonder why a six-term incumbent that has a decent national profile isn't able to outraise Mitchell. It also is probably an indication of how good Mitchell's fundraising operation is. One has to remember that Mitchell has only been in the race for a few months, where as Hayworth has been raising money for this for years.|W|P|115308136679557423|W|P|Anyone Notice This One?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/16/2006 01:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|I'd also like to see a breakdown of donors to each campaign - AZ vs. out of AZ and small (<$500) vs. large (>$500).

Is there a listing anywhere on the web yet? The updated reports weren't on the FEC's website as of last night.

My expectation is that Harry Mitchell's report will show that he has far more donors with smaller average donations, and a far higher percentage of his donors from AZ, than JD.

Those are only guesses, though. Can't wait to see the hard numbers.

As for why Mitchell outraised Hayworth, maybe it's simply because more people like Harry.7/16/2006 01:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Everyone's wild about Harry?

Sorry...it was inevitable.7/16/2006 01:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|maybe it has something to do with the fact his campaign manager Joe Eule is running the campaign part-time when he isn't running Foghorn's congressional office?

it also probably has helped Harry to be on the DCCC top ten list (or whatever they're calling it)7/16/2006 02:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|cpmaz,

You can find all the FEC reports your heart desires at:

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/efile_search.shtml7/16/2006 02:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|An interesting top-level comparison between JD and Harry… To date, JD has gotten 49% of his total contributions from PACs as compared to 23% for Harry.7/16/2006 04:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ted! That was awful! *laughs*

Harry is well liked in his local area and he can get people not active to volunteer for him. I was at my orthodondist the other day and the lady in charge of the finances came over to tell me she AND her husband had been calling regularly for Harry. She also said that her husband hated phones and avoided them whenever possible yet he was doing hour or more at the HQ in Tempe.7/16/2006 09:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|A number of years back I read a book by, I think, Jacobson on Congressional elections. One thing he said was that it was not as important that a challenger raise as much as an incumbent.

Basically, the more a challenger narrowed the gap, the better it was for challengers and worse it was for incumbents. Basically, that it showed viability and the challenger could hang in the ad war. It could also raise their name rec. which is the usual problem for challengers. Obviously that wasn't a problem here in the first place.

These numbers are very good news for Mitchell, in my opinion.7/17/2006 04:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|430K from individual donors in three months?

Enough said. Mitchell rules.7/15/2006 05:50:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Tucson Citizen had an article today on the fundraising totals for the candidates. The numbers are based on FEC data and various press releases from the campaigns. The only trouble I have with the article is that they just gave the numbers, which are cumulative totals, without any sort of comparison to what the candidates raised last quarter. This could tell you a great deal about what direction the campaigns are going. For example, the zeitgeist surrounding Mike Hellon's campaign has been that he has been losing support among influential Republicans, and the fact that he didn't raise as much this report as he did for the last one would have told people that. And the numbers can be deceptive too. For example, I saw that Bill Johnson raised $58,000. Johnson's candidacy didn't exist for the last report, and this number would mean that he raised more money than Jeff Latas this last quarter. Given Johnson's politics, this really worried me. Well, when you actually look at where Johnson's money comes from, it turns out that the entire amount was a personal loan from him to the campaign, not from some stir among the populace. Not very impressive at all, actually.|W|P|115301265767640832|W|P|Fundraising Totals|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/16/2006 12:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Quarterly totals for the Republicans are being posted as available on http://thinkrightaz.blogspot.com/

Links to the actual reports are included.7/16/2006 01:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|The best part of this month though Tedski was that I was in Tucson 2 weeks ago and a buddy took me to "the buffet".

Wow... it was the Tucson stereotype. It has culture , history and it smells.

What that says about Phoenix is left to everyone's imagination.7/16/2006 01:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|And Chez Nous is the height of class, right?

Geez, dude, you know that you could have called me to take you to actual cool places.

I hate the Buffet. I hope you stayed clear of the bathrooms.7/16/2006 01:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|I did a roundup of my own of money ... you can find it at www.wactivist.com. The big shocker - Harry Mitchell OUTRAISED JD HAYWORTH and all other congressional candidates in the state pulling in nearly $600k! This is his second quarter of strong success, his first was short since he had only just entered the race.7/16/2006 06:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|haha, yeah...the bathrooms were "interesting" to say the least.7/15/2006 06:55:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I am so jealous. See, for the past couple of decades, Arizona has had some screwball politics. Lately, not so much. In some ways it's a good thing. Better to debate actual policy than whether or not the Governor wants the word "pickaniny" in public school text books, I say. Now, everyone else seems to get the strange campaigns. As hot as the CD-8 race has been, there hasn't been anything there to cause us the national embarassment of past candidates and scandals. For example: Florida. They have been outdoing us lately. Well, "they" may be a strong word, it's really "she." She meaning Republican Senate Candidate Katherine Harris. Frankly, the fact they couldn't find a better candidate in what they claim to be the "red" state of Florida speaks volumes about some of their party's troubles this year. This woman's bizarre behavior has been fodder for every liberal blogger (an amusing, and creepy, incident can be found here) and led her entire staff to quit. Twice even. No word yet on whether shoe-minder Gator is still working for her. Now it has come out that she leveled allegations at talk show host and former congressman Joe Scarborough in a strange attempt to keep him out of the race. It almost seems that the woman is spending more time fighting off her fellow Republicans than running against Senator Bill Nelson. I'm not complaining. I hope she moves to Arizona after this. No surprise about Florida, but a surprise about this one: Connecticut. Most of you are familiar with the race between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman. What you may not know is that, yes, the Republican Party is actually fielding a candidate: Alan Schlesinger, a former state representative and former mayor of Derby. Yeah, I don't know where that is either. Even a junkie like me couldn't name this guy until last week when a report surfaced that he had been picked out as a card counter at a couple of casinos and started registering at them under a false name to avoid detection. Justin Rood of Talking Points Memo had a talk with the guy:
That's what happens to you when you try to do something for the people...I just picked up 10 points in name recognition.
I'm like a cult hero now...I guess I'll never be able to go to another casino.
Um, yeah, being picked out as a problem gambler is a good thing. Republican leaders are pressing the guy to quit. That isn't to say that the Democratic Primary isn't any fun. Lieberman is running a suprisingly inept campaign. If you want proof of this, check out one of his amatuerish ads. Also fun is to check out Lamont's response. If nothing else, you'll see that Lamont's strength in this race is not his, uh, personal charisma.|W|P|115297604406653501|W|P|The Arizonization of National Politics?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/15/2006 08:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|Derby was the location of Charlton Comics back in the day. The two big companies, Marvel and DC, were located in nearby New York City and struggling comics artists and writers would work there before they got their start.

Charlton had a reputation for being a bit half-assed as a comic book company.7/15/2006 08:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Suh, Son of Vulcan and Peter Cannon...Thunderbolt were not "half-assed."

Now Atlas comics, that was half-assed.7/15/2006 09:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|The CT race has been getting a lot more coverage, and to be fair it's earned it, but the Harris antics have certainly been a lot more fun to follow. Very weird.7/15/2006 09:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|There's a good reason why Arizona politics today are noticeably less corrupt than in some other states.

It's called the Arizona clean elections law.

Even with the recent revelation that some lobbyists have been buying lunch for our legislators, this pales into insignificance compared to the big money they've been able to dump in other states and at the national level. And donating a ton of money doesn't do any good for them if it is to a candidate whose opponent is running clean (Matt Salmon and his backers got a lesson in that four years ago), so they don't, and therefore our candidates don't get bought that way.

In this year that has brought us the ugly end of Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay, let us be thankful for the Arizona clean elections law that has spared us this kind of scandal here.

Now, if only the rest of the nation would pass something like that on a national level, then we wouldn't have Senators and Congressmen who sell their souls in Washington.7/15/2006 09:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I don't hope that Katherine Harris moves to Arizona. I hope she moves to Bhutan or some similarly obscure place so we never have to see or hear of her again.7/15/2006 09:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|If Katherine Harris moves to AZ, Tucson has to take her - karmic payback for you wishing she would move here. lol7/14/2006 04:15:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I recieved an e-mail saying that Republicans are trying to recruit former State Rep. Jim Carruthers to run as a write-in in the place of Rep. Russ Jones. I'm dubious about this, since Carruthers was a moderate and I find it hard to believe that Republicans would recruit a moderate given their mood these days. Of course, it would all depend on what group of Republicans was doing the recruiting. Also, I've been told that Carruthers, given his moderate bent, would not be enthusiastic about running against Democratic Rep. Amanda Aguirre, nor would he be enthusiastic about the "2/3 majority" plan of the conservative leadership.|W|P|115291989644737249|W|P|Someone Else in District 24?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/14/2006 05:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski

Correct me if I am wrong but is Russ Jones even a conservative? On May 25, ’06 he voted against the Republican budget along with Hershberger. According to CAP he also voted to allow tax pay funded abortions, supported gambling, and was against vouchers. Not exactly a foaming at the mouth right-winger. Maybe someone decided one moderate is as good as another.

HB2876, SB1325, SB1329, and HB2676.7/14/2006 05:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Hey don't blame him for those votes! Amanda Aguirre is responsible for them, and the shenanigans of the democrats with their chicago style politics!

Nothing, listen to my phx kid, NOTHING is EVER the fault of Russ Jones ... it is all aguirre and the dems.7/14/2006 06:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Calm down mister t. Maybe while am listening you could learn to read.

I don’t care if Russ Jones, Russ Dove, or Russ the Stray Dog is on the ballot in Yuma. I was just remarking on Ted’s comment that Carruthers was a moderate.7/14/2006 10:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Voltron|W|P|As a voter in LD 24, Jones was no Carruthers. He was disliked by many so-called moderates in the House for never really choosing a side. His quest for leadership made him hop from position to position.

He crossed the line when he voted for vouchers (SB 1499 and HB 2004). He voted for the trespassing bill (HB 2577) and voted for anti-choice bills (HB2254). He walked out during voters on immigration related bills because he wanted to corner Rep. Aguirre on the issues.

He even voted to hamper with the Supreme Court and our State initiative process (HB 2373).

The Governor vetoed all of the above.

Rep. Carruthers always respected individuals. Many of bills were passed with full support from the Dems and a couple (less than half) of the Republicans. As a member of the mushroom coalition, a few Republicans AND ALL OF DEMOCRATS pushed for funding for Student First (school construction) and Proposition 301.

Rep. Jones and his fraternity mentality only cared about Russ, never his district.7/14/2006 07:03:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|There has been a great deal of criticism of Rip Wilson's donation to Gabrielle Giffords. Yeah, I'll admit, I don't like most of his clients. I don't like the fact that this guy lobbies for Clear Channel Outdoor, but I've actually lobbied Giffords on billboard issues and I can't think of a time she has voted with those bozos. Interestingly, he also lobbies for the American Diabetes Association. I'm not sure how $600 out of whatever fraction of a million dollars will be announced today is supposed to determine her entire political career, but hey, whatever works. I went ahead and checked the list of his clients, and I caught one that I haven't heard Patty Weiss or Jeff Latas go after. Right there, #2 on the list: American Association for Nude Recreation. So, what was the quid pro quo on that one? The people have a right to know.|W|P|115288660563775574|W|P|Are There Junkets Available?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/14/2006 07:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|I was hoping someone would post a thread for discussing today's fundraising disclosures. :)

I would hope Giffords cracks $250 K. I think cracking $300 K again is likely too much to expect in the third quarter.

For Patty's second quarter, I hope she cracks $200 K, which would be a small increase in what she did her first quarter. At least match what she did her first quarter.

I hate to say it, but I think Latas needs at least $125 K this quarter to remain credible. If not, he gets fully demoted to being an issue-raiser but not a serious candidate for winning. Which isn't to say it's not an important role, it's why Francine and Alex are still in the race.7/14/2006 08:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|I also checked into Wilson thing, since it appears to be one of the few FACTS being cited.

This guy contributes to lots of candidates, almost all of the donations in the $150 to $400 range. He spreads it around.

He also works for lots of causes, naturally some we might agree with and some we do not.

Bloggers have screamed the high heavens on this and SB1065, and now it's front page of the Tucson section of today's Star.

If this is the worst aspect of a five year record that Weiss campaign can find, it looks pretty good for Giffords.7/14/2006 08:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|I hope someday Gabby can give a bunch of money to Rip Wilson. That would make it all right.7/14/2006 08:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|Being headline news does not make this a good thing for Gabby. Her rebuttal will now be picked apart for the inaccuracies that are evident.7/14/2006 09:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|And so it begins again...good morning colleagues!

As to fundraising. If Giffords has been getting big donors then they should be tapped out. So, if she starts raising less then it might show that her support dried up. That said, if she continues to outraise the other candidates, whether it is $250K, $300K, or whatever, it is impressive. Getting to $750K or above would be frankly amazing at this point and it would show the strength of her campaign.

I agree that Patty needs to get in the game and outraise herself from last time, which was about $183K. If she outraises Giffords in this quarter, that is impressive also. It would show momentum for Patty and that she could add to her base of fundraising from the 1st Quarter.

Still, in the end, we need to look at cash on hand and where people are at vis-a-vis the Republicans, who will be bringing it in the fall.7/14/2006 09:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Well Tedski, this topic aside... I just want to say how much i love this blog.7/14/2006 10:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|oh c'mon people! Show a sense of humor! 6 comments so far and no one has even attempted to answer the quid pro quo question.

I'll start:

First of all, the $600 was just the monetary donation. I'd like to think she also got a year's membership and a trip to the nudist resort of her and Capt. Kelly’s choice courtesy of "Bare Necessities," AANR's world travel partner. But she probably just got the lousy seashell towel.

In exchange for all this booty, Gabby pledged not to support the “wear red for women day” resolution (cuz they’d rather not have women – or men – wear anything) and killed a proposed amendment to the animal and ecological terrorism bill that would have included scaring the crap out of the wildlife by walking naked in the woods.7/14/2006 11:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|hahahahahahaha, bored.7/14/2006 11:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Good point, bored. Tedski's humor often brightens my day. Just noted a day or two ago how one of his quips provoked an outburst in a coffee shop that startled my fellow caffeinators.

Please keep doing what you do, Tedski. There are some out here that appreciate.7/14/2006 02:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger kralmajales|W|P|Giffords campaign reports:

Giffords Raises $291,531 in Second Quarter ‘06, with $588,210 Cash on Hand. This brings her total funds raised above $850K.7/14/2006 08:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The thing I wanted to know about the nude recreationists is how come they are willing to have someone like him who supports Gabby, are they not mostly conservatives?

(Time or Newsweek did a profile a few years ago and they were all these really into "purity" Christians running around "pure" aka nude. Which is impressive because that really is living in a glass house I think.)7/14/2006 08:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|Before the stones start to fly, Giffords has now raised a total of $861,712.68. Of that total, $795,862.68 came from individual contributions. If I did the math correctly, that means that just over 92% of her contributions came from individuals.7/14/2006 11:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|Check out the burn rate of the cash for Gabby.

She has spent $273,728 since declaring. She won't have that much more than the Weiss campaign for TV, given these monthly expenses.

She's so fine, there's no tellin' where the money went.7/15/2006 12:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Adela La Mariah|W|P|Patty got in the game back when she stayed up all night doing her homework. She needs less money than Gabby for this reason. She does her homework, gets the facts and reports the news.

The news is that she is better on TV than Gabby, and much more experienced in public speaking, interviews, and therefore she needs less money for TV than does Gabby.

Patty Weiss also needs less internal polling, consultants and out of state advisors, because she is better known and more popular than any of the candidates of any of the parties.

Gabby is spending a lot of money and I still don't know what she stands for. I know she belongs to lots of organizations that only people with either money or leisure time could join.

The working poor could never join the clubs and organizations that Gabby belongs to. We don't have the time to be active when the family must be fed. Depending on someone who does not know these pressures, but will represent me does not give me much confidence. These people bragging about Gabby's money have lost touch with the families that can never afford to give to these candidates because they have to choose between gasoline and food for survival.

Lots of them work at Walmart, McDonalds, and Bashas and Gabby could have reimbursed Arizona taxpayers (SB 1065) for the money that went to underinsured workers of businesses hiring more than one hundred employees.

She said it was unenforceable, but she had the ability to offer amendments rather than kill it with the Republicans.

I'm hungry, my family is hungry and everyone I know is either on AHCCS, or uninsured.

Everyone on this blog who brags about the ability of money to influence this race is not hungry or they would understand the gap between Gabby and Alex, Jeff and Patty.

Gabby's excuses for her special interest donations, favors and votes is unconvincing to me, no matter how many times she or her supporters insist they are right in their version.

It is awful, and I am tired of the excuses.7/15/2006 07:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|The Citizen has an early report on fundraising dollars (not cash on hand).

The most interesting thing is that the communications director for Weiss spins the story in favor of Weiss by saying that Giffords raised less than expected and that she need three times that much to beat Weiss' name rec. Hilarious.

What the spin is trying to spin you away from is that Weiss actually raised less this time than she did last.

She reports a total of $320K...Last time she pulled in over $180K. If you do that math, she raised less than $140k this time.7/15/2006 09:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|I am sure Giffords pulled in far more than the weiss campaign had hoped for. :)

I know what the Giffords campaign was hoping for back in early April when the quarter started, and they exceeeded that.

I seem to recall outlander saying, either here or on TDP, somethng about Giffords' funding "drying up" -- Weiss can't even dream of having such a dry level of support.

Raising less than half what Giffords did for the quarter is a very poor sign.7/15/2006 09:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|SAOL,

"There's no telling where the money went." ???

Yea, there is. They're filming ads, purchasing TV/radio time, yard and street signage, paying staff, printing literature, and the list goes on. No reason to believe anything different about the Weiss campaign.

What many have speculated appears to be unfolding, which is a two way race between the ladies. The Weiss number is not particularly surprising. Most interested in the Latas number, but haven't seen it yet, and in this conversation, no news tends to be bad news.7/15/2006 09:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Gabby has spent a fortune to create a campaign in crisis. That is where the money is going. Most people are getting to know her, when she is either in attack mode, or defending herself. Not a great rollout.7/15/2006 11:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger kralmajales|W|P|Anon...

Lots of people know her already. Within the party fold. Some like her some don't it appears, but most think highly of her. She has a wide network around the state and even nationally.

So I don't know if I agree with you.

What I do agree with you about is if the attacks get her off message. I think that won't be occurring so much and I bet there have been a lot who have been turned off by the Patty attacks as much as there have been some who where turned off by Giffords' response.

Anyhoo...off to enjoy the day.

Best to you!7/15/2006 11:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger kralmajales|W|P|Since someone asked about figures on Latas and others, here is what the Citizen Reports today in its article. These are just overall totals and do not get at cash on hand. Oh...I looked on FEC.gov and as to Johnson. He loaned himself the total amount to his campaign, it appears.



Gabrielle Giffords: $861,938
Patty Weiss: $320,000
Jeffrey Lynn "Jeff" Latas: $77,000
William "Bill" Johnson: $58,044
Alex Rodriguez: $32,075
Dwight D. Leister: 7,757
Francine Shacter: $3,198

Steve Huffman: $506,588
Randy Graf: $292,259
Mike Hellon: $196,000
Frank Antenori: $5,943
Mike "Michael T." Jenkins: $5,803
Jay Dudley Quick: $55,157
Jon Kyl (R): $10.56 million
Jim Pederson (D): $6.01 million7/15/2006 11:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Looking at those figures, looks like Graf did a much better job with his fundraising this quarter than he did the first one.7/15/2006 12:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|Kral,

The poll and the money do not bear out your thesis. Gabby is lurching about defending but not defining herself, beyond being angry and namecalling.

I do not see Patty attacking Gabby personally, but I see Clean Elections and the WalMart/McDonald/Basha SB1065 favor as being issues and not personal attacks, like the Foxy News quote.

Gabby did better on John C. Scott, but there are statements she made there that can haunt her victory party.7/15/2006 01:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|outlander,

I realize you apparently can't recall what you read, but just to reiterate for those with better short-term memory.

No one disputes bringing up SB 1065 or the fact Gabby has never run under clean elections is a personal attack. Those are facts.

Of course, claiming Giffords "doesn't support clean elections" when she clearly has supported them in the legislature is disingenious, but even that isn't personal.

However, Patty going on the radio and saying something to the effect of "I can't prove it, but Giffords takes money for votes" -- that IS a personal attack.

By the way, how do you feel about that "Giffords' donations are drying up" statement you made a week ago?7/15/2006 02:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|I think Gabby needs three to four times more money than the Weiss campaign to introduce her, her issues, and her compelling history as a politician and urban planner.

I think her funds are less than that, and that she has to campaign AND raise funds to do that. She is better at dialing for dollars than campaigning on the ground. Her air war may change that, but it will be expensive.7/15/2006 02:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|Gabby absolutely supports Clean Elections and she wants to debate it more in the future. I heard her say it so it must be true.

If she ever runs for state office after this campaign, she should take the $5 contributions avoid the pain that the big checks continue to cause you and her.


Is Gabby being disingenious or merely playing a professional politician?

This must hurt, because you cannot forget the trauma, and you insist that her soothing balm of explanations and technical reasons regarding her stance on Clean Elections and her killing the SB1065 baby without offering amendments nor leadership is okay with you, so I must not be paying attention.7/15/2006 03:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Outlander,

OK, if you think she needs 3x or 4x the money Weiss raises then obviously she doesn't have that much. However, I believes she has more than sufficient difference already to catch up in the name recognition field, and based on fund-raising trends this gap will only widen over the next couple months.

Given the Weiss campaigns' obvious concerns over the funds gap, I think they agree with me, rather than with you.

I agree Giffords has flaws, any candidate does. Frankly, for the amount of time and effort folks have been picking, they've come up with exceptionally little.

I think you hear very well when you want to ... and don't when you choose not to. :)I notice you don't even bother to contest the point (nor have I ever seen in contested in other threads) that the comments Weiss made during her radio appearance amounted to personal attacks ... because no credible defense can be made.7/15/2006 07:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|adela la mariah,

I take it by that remark you're against Jim Pederson as well?7/16/2006 12:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|I don't think the very mild comments on John C. Scott were personal attacks, but I think Gabby calling Patty Weiss a Fox News reporter at the Nucleus Club is a negative, personal attack that reflected anger and spite.

The fun part was Gabby asking that there be no negative attacks and then doing her best to contradict herself.7/16/2006 03:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Really? Insinuating someone is corrupt qualifies as "mild"? Referring to someone as being "like a Fox News reporters" is worse?

We have differing standards then.

I agree about the Fox news comment, and I wish Giffords hadn't said it. On the other hand, Weiss got in the first shot, and shouldn't be surprised as getting one back.7/16/2006 09:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Outlander notes:

"I think Gabby needs three to four times more money than the Weiss campaign to introduce her, her issues, and her compelling history as a politician and urban planner."

Frankly, I disagree with this statement for a lot of reasons, but just to note.

Giffords DOES have over 4 times the Weiss campaign in cash on hand.7/21/2006 12:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Willcox Jim|W|P|I looked into Gabrielle Giffords after reading about her in the local paper. And no one in these parts hardly knows who she is or what she stands for.

I thought someone would know about her besides the local democrats, and I was wrong.

How can we expect a person who is unknown in most of Cochise County to beat the Republicans? Who has the best ability to win this for the democrats?7/13/2006 05:51:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Len Munsil's campaign blog blames Janet Napolitano and Terry Goddard for the two (or, Munsil notes, "at least two" since it sounds like more) serial killers on the loose in the Phoenix area. He claims that Arizona has been "#1 in crime" the entire time the two of them have been in office. Of course, he neglected to note how this is being measured and that it could be said to be true during many of the years previous to Napolitano's and Goddard's reigns. By the way, the top rate of violent crime came back in 1993 (when reckoned per capita or raw numbers), when Fife Symington and Grant Woods were in charge. This meshes nicely with a theme that Bill Montgomery has been running against Goddard on: that he hasn't been prosecuting enough street crime. Traditionally, the State Attorney General's office doesn't handle this sort of thing. The crimes that they do handle tend to be white colar crimes, financial crimes or organized crimes such as drug trafficking or money laundering. Why aren't Munsil's rhetorical guns trained on the Maricopa County Attorney's office, which has more staff than the Attorney General and is actually responsible for prosecuting such cases? Oh, it can't be because Andrew Thomas is a Republican, right? Naw, this can't be some cheap partisan attack. Munsil would never do such a thing. Funny how "small government" Republicans want a state-wide official to take over something that is a local responsibility. Imagine the hackles that would be raised if tommorrow Goddard announced that he is taking over the investigation one of these serial killer cases. Then we would get a smart alecky press release from the Republicans about the overreaching Goddard engaging in a publicity stunt, wouldn't we? Thomas would hold an angry press conference saying that Goddard should stick to prosecuting fraudsters and polluters. NB - By the way Len, while you were complaining that Goddard is spending too much time prosecuting people that victimize the elderly, you neglected to check on what Thomas has been emphasizing on his website. This morning's top story in his "what's new" column is a prosecution of three Phoenix area food service establishments. Important, no doubt about it. Had this been Goddard, you'd be complaining about it though.|W|P|115279799592846107|W|P|Len Munsil: It's All Goddard's Fault|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/13/2006 08:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski

Excellent point. I agree. I always thought that the moderate duo of Symington and Woods did a terrible job fighting crime.

Hey, isn’t Woods now a Democrat or endorsing one?7/13/2006 09:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Munsil's comments are a stretch considering that we don't even have a clue of who these people are and what set them off.

His assertions may be right, but then again, what is he going to say if they catch them and discover that they are both graduates of sheriff Joe's tent city and that they learned to hate civilized society while they were in there being fed green bologna? Since we know nothing, that has to be presumed to be just as likely as what Munsil is asserting.7/13/2006 10:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|No, it just shows you how little Munsil understands about fighting crime. The AGs office is a state-wide office that assists the local offices and handles the multi-jurisidiction cases, thats it. And they enforce a very small few of legislative directed laws like the Consumer Fraud Act or the Civil Rights Act. Something that is too big for a county attorney.

Otherwise, it is Thomas's job to enforce our laws and prosecute these killers and too be honest, its not Thomas's fault either. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office is a a very long , storied and succesful office regardless of who the elected politician is. Thomas is running the office just fine, honestly. One could accuse him of taking his eye off the ball to go after immigration instead of say ID Theft or Meth? But thats a REAL political debate. Not blaming rapists on Thomas or Goddard7/13/2006 10:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|No, it just shows you how little Munsil understands about fighting crime.

I disagree, Tom. Munsil has a former deputy county attorney as one of his campaign managers. A guy who prosecuted homicides there and even ran for the office 2 yrs ago.
Munsil knows what that office and the AG's office does. He's just twisting the facts to suit his agenda.7/13/2006 11:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|I disagree, Tom. Munsil has a former deputy county attorney as one of his campaign managers. A guy who prosecuted homicides there and even ran for the office 2 yrs ago.

Bored --- so you are saying Munsil's CAMPAIGN knows how the AG's office works since one of his staffers gets it ... meaning you don't disagree with tom-az.

Also -- ONE of his campaign managerS? I've never seen a two headed beast like that run well ... but then again the guy REALLY calling the shots in that race is Nathan "SHRED EM UP" Sproul, so I guess it doesn't matter.7/13/2006 01:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|mister t,

I'm not sure of his actual title, but i've heard him referred to as a "manager" so i hedged my bet by calling him 'one of.'

Be careful about that two headed beast remark. I believe our current governor has two chiefs of staff.7/13/2006 03:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chris|W|P|Nathan Sproul? Is that the same guy who endorsed Carolyn (abortion-on-demand) Allen? How does that work, advise Munsil by day, advocate for abortion by night. Interesting if true.7/13/2006 07:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|No he's the one that was caught throwing away Dem. voter Registrations last election!7/13/2006 08:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Bored -

The Governor has one campaign manager (Noah Kroloff) and one Chief of Staff (Dennis Burke).

One for running the Government, one for winning the campaign. Very different that two campaign managers or two chief's of staff.7/13/2006 08:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|To learn something more about dear Nathan and his "activities," go online to the dkospedia page link:

Nathan_Sproul7/13/2006 10:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chris|W|P|That’s messed up. I know munsil was a right wing freak but I thought he was smarter than that. Why would anyone hire a guy like sproul to work his campaign?7/14/2006 08:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Mister T,

She has two chiefs of staff: Dennis Burke is the Chief of Staff for Policy and Alan Stephens is the Chief of Staff for Operations.

Geez, it's right on her web site for crying out loud.7/15/2006 12:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|chris:

Why would anyone hire a guy like sproul to work his campaign?

Maybe because he's running against a very popular governor, so he knows the only way he can have a chance is if someone 'loses' a bunch of Democratic voter files in the garbage? In that case, he's looking towards Sproul's experience and proven track record in these sorts of matters.7/15/2006 01:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|The reason why Arizona is on top of the crime list is bluntly clear when you examine the FBI crime statistics for 2005. 962 Motor vehicle thefts per 100,000 population, and all but a handful of them in Maricopa or Pima county. Of course, our population centers are much closer to Mexico than the biggest population centers in other states (except maybe California, but we have a much longer border than they do.) The Governor has been pushing border security for months. What does Munsil plan to do about it?

Oh, wait a minute-- Munsil does have a plan. We can assume from his criticism of the Governor that if he were Governor, he wouldn't worry at all about people throwing trash on our highways; We can assume from his criticism of Goddard that according to him, it is perfectly OK if businesses defraud their customers.

Maybe Munsil, since he doesn't care about it anyway, will simply ask the legislature to make fraud legal. Then the crime rate will go down as well, and he can claim he was successful.7/12/2006 06:14:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, looks like wanna be Senate Candidate Russ Jones is off of the ballot after all. Attorneys for the Democratic Party were able to prove that Jones had not told the truth when he had said that he had personally circulated petitions. Word to volunteers: this is why campaign people always bug you to sign the back of the petitions. A story on the AP wire refers to Jones as being guilty of "petition fraud." In the past, candidates have been not only bounced off the ballot for such things, but have been barred from running for office for a number of years. I don't know if this charge rises to that level, but if it does, it would make it impossible for him to get nominated as a write-in candidate. As late as last week, Republicans seemed to be confident that even if Jones got bounced, they could use this write-in route. Geez, Russ, even Joe Sweeney managed to get himself a place on the ballot. As this case has wound its way through the courts, the Arizona Republican Party decided to challenge Amanda Aguirre's petitions. Well, not challenge them in court. Charges like this are serious and deserve serious legal scrutiny, so they sent out a snarky press release. Typical of the State Republican Headquarters these days, they seem to spend more time being smart alecks than checking their facts. They allege that, like Jones, Aguirre signed off on petitions that she couldn't have circulated because the legislature was in session, and further allege that she got help from Lt. Commander Montgomery Scott. Well, just because the legislature was in session, doesn't mean she was showing up. See, Jones was actually on record as attending on the days he had signed up. According to her colleagues, Aguirre was absent many days durring the waning weeks of the session. Guess why? Because she was in Yuma making sure she had her signatures. (The last weeks of the session was an exercise in thumb twiddling for minority party members, for many, being there was of quesionable utility. So, she didn't cheat on her petitions, but she was not showing up. That could be the sort of thing that her opponent could bring up...wait...she doesn't have one!) So, that must be why they didn't challenge her petitions. Oh, no, they didn't challenge her petitions because they are noble and don't practice that sort of politics. One of the allegations they throw the Democrats way is that they are playing "Chicago-style" politics. Well, they might want to remember that Democrats usually win in Chicago, so bring it on. Funny how asking that someone follow the law and not lie on a legal document is all of a sudden dirty politics. I'd buy this argument if they themselves didn't engage in this sort of thing themselves. In fact, just this week, there was an usuccsssful challenge to Joe Sweeney's petitions. It is well known that Republican pooh-bahs don't want this guy on the ballot, and I don't blame them one bit. The woman that handled that suit for them was Lisa Hauser, who is a big wheel in state Republican politics. So, what makes that challenge so different? Or is it okay when the suit is done to clear the way for a Republican candidate?|W|P|115275440588945675|W|P|¡Pobrecito Russ!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/12/2006 09:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|The upside of this is that the term for state senator is only 2 years. I bet the Republican candidate in ’08 will be more careful about signatures and then the Democrat will have to run on the issues.7/13/2006 08:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|Given that Rep. Jones was one of the Speaker's loyal foot soldiers and supported an agenda that was bad for rural Arizona, I think that Rep. Aguirre would have won on the issues.7/13/2006 08:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|The Democrats must have not been very confident that Aguirre would win on the issues or they would not have gone to court to get Jones knocked off the ballot.7/13/2006 09:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|Phx kid: Call me crazy, but it bothers me if a law-maker thinks it's ok to be a law-BREAKER.

Russ Jones is a legislator AND a Notary Public. He knew the law about nominating petitions. But like his fellow Republican, Leona Hemsley, he thinks the law only applies to the "little people."7/13/2006 10:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Sonoran man

If you read my comments carefully you will not find one word defending Russ Jones. A judge found ruled that he broke the rules. End of story.

My point was that the Democrats must not be very confident in the issues if they choose to compete in the courts and not at the ballot box.7/13/2006 02:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|By that logic then, the Republicans must not be very confident that any of their candidates would win on the issues or they would not have gone to the Clean Elections Commission and the Secretary of State to get Napolitano knocked off the ballot.7/13/2006 03:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Did they ask for her to be knocked off the ballot or just for appropriate sanctions? I am asking because I honestly don’t know.7/13/2006 04:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I don't know that they asked for a specific sanction or whether they are keeping their options open but one of the appropriate sanctions for one of the alleged violations is removal from the ballot.

In any event, whether its Jones/Aguirre or Napolitano/Munsil/OroAgua et al., neither party is above playing with the system to gain an advantage in their campaigns.7/13/2006 06:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I think there is a difference between going to court specifically to have someone removed from the ballot and asking the CCEC to enforce the clean election rules.

I don’t think Len is afraid to take on Janet on the issues, he just wants her to play by the same rules that he did.7/12/2006 05:25:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Last week, Gabrielle Giffords's campaign responded to Patty Weiss's campaign with a statement from a former Executive Director of the Clean Elections Institute:

Giffords’ strong record in support of campaign finance reform and financial transparency is well-known in Arizona. The Giffords campaign today released a letter from the former Executive Director of the Clean Elections Institute, Sharlene Bozack, which stated that without Giffords’ defense of the Clean Elections system in the legislature, “Arizona would not have such a system today.”

Bozack, who served as the Executive Director of the Clean Elections Institute from 1999-2001, attested to Giffords’ support for Arizona’s Clean Elections System. The letter, dated July 6, 2006, and addressed to Giffords, states that “without your strong commitment to seeing that the [Clean Elections] law not be overturned, the State of Arizona would not have such a system today.” The letter hailed Giffords for having “stood firm in your support of the system when it was under challenges at the state legislature,” and noted that Giffords “helped strategize with me to make sure the system did not get overturned in the legislature.”

This week, Patty Weiss's campaign responded to Gabrielle Giffords's campaign with a statement from a former Executive Director of the Clean Elections Institute:
"Running clean is important for everyone, but even more so for candidates outside of Maricopa County," said [Barbara] Lubin. "Candidates south of the Gila who opt out of Clean Elections often take significant contributions from Phoenix-area donors. This can create conflicts of interest for Tucson-area senators and representatives when legislation concerning Southern Arizona comes before them."

Lubin went on to say that she is confident that Weiss is the best choice to fight for clean elections in Washington.

"It is easy to talk the talk; much harder to walk the walk," said Lubin. "I am certain that Patty Weiss is the best candidate in this race and will be the national advocate we need to finally pass a system of publicly-financed elections that will take the special interest influence out of politics. And most importantly, I know she will run under a publicly-financed system as soon as it is available."

Since, as far as I know, there is not a third former Executive Director, we will not be seeing a release from Jeff Latas or Alex Rodriguez.|W|P|115270775617935462|W|P|Dueling Press Releases|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/12/2006 06:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|In this past Saturday's Tucson Citizen, Blake Morlock stated that this Clean Elections issue "is either a slumbering volcano that Weiss recognizes and every pollster in America has missed, or it is a bizarre cul-de-sac the race has detoured into for the sake of a fight."

I think it is the latter and it is an attack. The clean elections issue has been used to try to link Giffords as special interest bought and paid. There is no evidence at all except a fantasyland linkage between a donation from Rip Wilson to an obscure committee vote on a bill that would have never passed in an million years. But that portray that as "taking money from Walmart" to get progressives all riled up. Some have even suggested that she is corrupt. I am sure we will hear more of this in the posts that follow mine.

I will ask this though. Patty Weiss has claimed to be the frontrunner in this race with her poll showing she is 10 points ahead. What on earth makes her want to attack Giffords then? It goes against any strategy I know of for a frontrunner to do and I think it will backfire.

Anyone who didn't hear, Giffords was attacked at the Wilcox debate after saying she supported Clean elections with a near Reagan style line of "Gabby, Gabby, Gabby." I am sure someone will post a YouTube video almost immediately. Go ahead and look at it and again ask what Weiss and her campaign is up to...especially as you hear what follows.

Weiss has tried and tried to get endorsements of the same "special interests" (unions, pro-choice groups, environmental groups, etc) and has failed. She has also tried to raise special interest money and it has worked for her some, but it has also failed overall.

As the Skinny reported this past week, Weiss is trying hard to take Giffords strengths of better organization, endorsements, and superior fundraising and link it to corruption. I hope that the voters will see these attacks for what they truly are.7/12/2006 06:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Weiss is definitely trying to set a negative tone, and I agree it isn't the style of a "frontrunner" ... in fact, I believe she's conceded as much recently.

Weiss can complain all she likes about special-interest money, but she has taken some for this race, and would have more if she could have snagged a few endorsements which went to Giffords. She can tout her press release all she wants, but the statement by Bozack makes clear claims by Weiss or her supporters that Giffords "has not supported clean elections" are simply hogwash.

Weiss' unsubstantiated insinuations on the Scott show weren't exactly the epitome of class either.

Between being a hypocrite concerning PAC contributions and her Rovian radio appearance, Weiss has lost a lot of the respect I had for her.7/12/2006 09:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Oh, give me a break. Gabby's blog squad never had any respect for Patty.

Art's been dissing her on petty issues since day one.

Do you really think that a pro like Frank Costanzo would let Patty make a mountain out of a molehill if there wasn't an upside? As everyone's noted, Patty's done polling -- to figure out what it says, you just have to read between the lines.

The clean elections dust-up tells me that Patty's polling showed her target voters (for the primary, at least) respond strongly to clean elections as an issue.

Will this be the defining issue for the race? I doubt it. But it's been a successful detour for Patty, it's kept Gabby from defining any other issues, and it's gotten the race more mainstream press than anything prior.7/12/2006 09:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger kralmajales|W|P|AZYOULIKEIT:

That was one of my points. This was a poll tested issue. A poll driven attack. It doesn't seem genuine as she claims the holier than thou mantel on this issue.7/12/2006 09:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|If that's true, that's terribly sad for your district. With all that is going on in this country and the world, illegal immigration, a 300 billion dollar deficit, a bogged down conflict in Iraq, no future for social security, lack of affordable health care, you truly think this is the biggest issue on CD8 voter's minds?!!!

Even if this is a legitimate bone to pick with Giffords (and I think there are better ones), the election of Patty Weiss will not give us a clean elections system in the federal government for several reasons, the most obvious of which is that the people who stand to lose most directly are the 535 intrenched incumbents who would have to vote for it to become law. The reelection rate in the House is over 90% and they like it that way. They're not going to do anything about it.

Drop this nonsense and get back to fighting about real issues. Otherwise, the Republican candidates will define the election for you.7/12/2006 09:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|azyoulikeit,

Obviously Weiss (or her campaign) sees an upside, or they wouldn't be doing what they do. Whether they are correct is a different question.

Soooo ... having said that ... what does it say about her as a candidate that she would stoop to making allegations she _admits_ she is not prepared to substantiate (something which should be completely against her journalistic instincts to boot) in an attempt to improve her polling numbers?7/12/2006 10:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Roger, you keep saying Weiss went after the same special interests.

I don't see a Wal-Mart lobbyist or Eddie Basha on her list of donors, so how can you falsely claim that?

A union endorsement and money isn't the same as a corrupt corporation or a union-buster grocery mogul.

Border, I think corruption IS the main issue and the reason there is a war and immigration issue to begin with. Connect the dots.7/12/2006 11:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|I'm getting kinda tired of reading that Giffords is "pro-Wal-Mart" because she voted for a bill that helped low-wage employees obtain AHCCCS coverage.
AHCCCS is nothing more than Medicaid provided through an HMO. It ain't no bowl of tax-free cherries.
If she voted for a measure that allowed low-paid single moms to get medical coverage for her kids, that's pro-Wal-Mart?
Only a limousine liberal would make such an argument.7/12/2006 12:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Fedup,

An individual who works for Walmart, in whatever capacity, is not a special interest.

I work for a company. I have made contributions to Giffords' campaigns. Giffords neither knows nor cares what company I work for. My contributions in no way are associated to any vote for or against the company I work for.

I'm glad to hear you are ok with union endorsements, since Giffords has the majority of them.7/12/2006 01:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TooBlue4U|W|P|Funny that all I hear from Giffords supporters is whining about attacks.
That's the response of people who can't debate the merits of the arguement.
I've got news for you: an attack would've been bad-mouthing your girl for her personal relationships when the opportunity arose, but that's not going to happen from the Weiss camp. They're running "clean" in more ways than one.
Pointing out your girl's record is called campaigning. If your girl can't stand it now, I fear how she would react in the hallowed halls of Congress.
So, how about some points about WHY your girl's never run a clean campaign? Huh? It's a fair question and so far the only response she's given voters is whining.7/12/2006 01:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TooBlue4U|W|P|Oh, yeah, and while I'm at it..
The idea that voters don't care about the clean campaigns issue is another red herring.
I've got two words for you: "abrahamoff" and "cunningham." If voters in this district don't care about the influence of money in elections then I'm a monkey's uncle.
So, again, I ask, how about answering the question: Why hasn't GG ever run clean?7/12/2006 01:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Sonoran Sam, spin it anyway you want but the fact remains, she voted for a huge corporate welfare package by voting against the bill.7/12/2006 01:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|sirocco said...Fedup,
"An individual who works for Walmart, in whatever capacity, is not a special interest."

Maybe in your perverse world a lobbyist for Wal-Mart isn't considered a 'special interest'. I know a union of hundreds of thousands of members that would say otherwise.

If you are a professional lobbyist for your company, then you ARE a special interest. Don't compare apples to oranges. Giffords knows it was a corrupt vote or she would have come out with a response months ago.

You have to come up with a better one than that.

I am not okay with union money. I would prefer total Clean Elections with no PACs at all. Maybe with a progressive in Congress working with the other progressive eventually it will become reality.

Don't sweat it. I still think your candidate will win the primary. She just won't win the general.7/12/2006 01:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.7/12/2006 01:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|Its sad that Gabby can't get past her very own self made traps and evasions.

Voting for Walmart and against the Arizona taxpayers cost the state tens of millions of dollars for health care.

Supporting Clean Elections with funding from special interests is a new twist on free speech. Gabby took special interest money to help pay for her brave stand supporting Clean Elections.

It must work, because she is so popular and well liked for these difficult and complex decisions.

If only we had the brains to match Gabby's genius. Then we could understand what the political bosses know about the greatest gal who ever ran for CD 8.

This is all so convincing, that I might have to reregister as an Independent so that I can defend Gabby against these horrible progressives. Roger Kralmajales is taking the lead in turning Gabby Democrats into Independents and Republicans. You got me onboard... for now.7/12/2006 02:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Love that sense of humor, Tedski. Noting the lack of a third executive director made my morning--startled everyone else in the coffee shop.

Of course, at the macro level clean elections and corruption are a huge issue and safe turf for getting emotional and delivering moving speeches. Actually getting anything done about it for real is another matter, indeed, and not buying that Giffords is corrupt.

True she chose to run "conventional" in the past and appropriate to hear her rationale for doing so. We probably will.

Actually, I'm interested in whether it is Giffords' or Giffords's, Weiss's or Weiss', Latas' or Latas's, and what if it's plural, as in Weiss's supporters, or is it Weisss'?

Rodgriguez's supporters?

Perhaps we should elect Francine.7/12/2006 02:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|1. ONE VOTE (in committee, by the way) is the only action cited by those on this blog (and others) who criticize Giffords as being some sort of corporate shill. Weiss takes the same half-baked approach in her earlier post on Kos and in other strikes launched by her campaign. ONE VOTE does not a pattern make, nor does citing ONE ENDORSEMENT (Basha) from a guy the Democrats nominated for governor in 1998! I'm sure you could find a single position you didn't like in the Latas or Weiss platforms. Does that then give you cause to make some blanket assertion such as the one you hurl at Giffords?

2. Is everyone who takes Clean Elections funding supposed to be some kind of saint? If so, let's start polishing halos for Len Munsil, Don Goldwater AND all of the right-wingers in the Legislature who "ran clean." I'll take Giffords' voting record, lauded across the board by interest groups who support the Democratic agenda, over those "clean" folks any time!

3. Giffords is the ONLY candidate drawing support from ALL segments of the Democratic Party. She also has a track record of attracting support from independents and open-minded Republicans, as she proved in the former LD13 and the current LD28. We need that ability to win this Republican-majority district. I'm sure it feels good to put forth these "more Democrat than thou" arguments when trashing Giffords and/or touting Weiss or Latas, but they don't stand up to scrutiny based on her demonstrated record in Phoenix and her opponents are less likely to attract the independent and GOP votes needed to WIN!

4. The not-so-subtle attempt to inject personal innuendo into this race made by tooblue4u in an earlier post is slimy and loathesome. I have no doubt that the Latas and Weiss camps would not associate themselves with that sort of crap. I'm also certain the average voter knows how to filter such remarks7/12/2006 02:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Fedup,

I disagree with your postulate. An individual is separate from his job. If I give money in my own name, I am giving it on my behalf.

Now, if a lobbyist arranges for a PAC to give money, that's a different matter. But individual contributions are just that -- individual contributions.

It's not debatable Weiss has accepted PAC money, and has competed for endorsements and money from others Giffords eventually received. You don't even deny that, you simply try to spin the point.


The claims made by Weiss on the radio show weren't concerned with Giffords' record. They were allegations Weiss admitted in the same breath she could not support, but by God she was gonna throw them out anyway, you know, just in case they stuck.7/12/2006 03:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Are you a betting man?

Word of mouth trumps almost every Hollywood rollout.

Word of mouth has pretty much destroyed Gabby's media blitz in advance, and it has changed her positions from pro-busines democrat to a progressive that takes special interest money so she can work to eliminate special interest money by promising to support Clean Elections.7/12/2006 03:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Border, I think corruption IS the main issue and the reason there is a war and immigration issue to begin with. Connect the dots.

Even though you got the name wrong, I'm going to assume you meant me, fedup. So let me turn the question back on you.

Connect the dots for me. I have heard nothing about what Patty Weiss will do to fix this "corruption" that is supposedly "the reason there is a war and immigration issue to begin with." All I have heard is how Giffords is part of the problem.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that these allegations are true: this "girl" Giffords, (as tooblue so condescendingly calls her), is the second coming of Duke Cunningham because she has never taken taxpayer money for her campaigns. Weiss' attack does nothing to tell anyone why Patty Weiss, who has also never run clean, would be any different if elected to Congress instead of Giffords.

What does she propose to do if elected to office? How will she, as one of 535, change the system? How will she address the constitutional issues inherent in any campaign finance reform? Does she think Buckley v. Valeo should be overturned? If so, how does she expect to do this when it was just upheld by the Supreme Court? How is she going to get done what no previous House or Senate member has been able to accomplish before, including McCain (whose original bill was greatly changed b/c of complaints from special interests)? How will she work with reform opponents like Mitch McConnell and his House counterparts to prevent blocks to her plans?

Unless or until I hear a positive plan of action from Weiss instead of negative attacks, I can't take this issue seriously.

Part of the problem with the Dems is that they have been defined as what they are against rather than what they are for. That is why they lose, because negative attacks don't move people to vote for someone. Mostly, they just turn people off and most will just stay home. In a district with such close registration numbers, that's a fatal mistake.7/12/2006 04:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Just as an aside ... ain't it kind of fun to see how fast any post about CD8 on any reasonably well-read blog fills up with comments pretyt quickly?7/12/2006 05:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|As an outsider -- I have to say the supporters of these two campaigns are embarssing the candidates they are fighting for.

Seriously - you all look like a bunch of petty idiots.

A few things, and I'm prepared for the flame war I'm about to start:

1) This Clean Elections Support question is an attack, sure - I guess -- but it isn't a NEGATIVE attack - it is an issue attack. By running for office, you open yourself up to criticism by the public and your opponent for your views, inconsistencies with what you say vs. what you do, and your trustworthiness. If you feel like having those things questioned is unfair -- or somehow NEGATIVE then running for office isn't your thing. The more I hear from Gabby supporters that Weiss has turned this into some super negative campaign - the less credibility her supporters have in my eyes. Want negative campaigning? Look at the swift boats, Max Cleland, what Bush did to McCain in South Carolina ... not a discussion on support of clean elections. Seriously folks -- it is indisputable that Gabby HAS NOT RUN CLEAN ... the debate is over what that means. That debate is a fair one - so have it and stop bitching to each other about how NASTY it is.

2) There is no such thing as a way a frontrunner should be. If Weiss thinks she needs to fight and keep fighting despite being up in opinion polls - more credit to her - it means she wants to win and realizes that polls don't mean anything. Personally if I was on the Gabby campaign I would EMBRACE the underdog thing - use it to rally support, use it create a narrative in the press about the "little engine who could" and take advantage of people thinking I was behind to get stories in the media about MOMENTUM as I started to close the gap (which I think everyone believes will close).

2) Back to clean elections - instead of going back and forth about who likes it more ... why doesn't one of these candidates show their support by going out there and helping collect fives for those candidates currently on the ballot who still need help! Be public about it ... show everyone how much you care about the system.

3) Do we have any evidence that Patty has given $5 contributions to candidates in the past? As someone pretty new to the political scene (which in my opinion can be a definite strength) I bet she hasn't given as many fives as gabby has. Can't someone find this out to stop the nonsense. And bringing that up wouldn't be negative folks, it would just be good campaigning.

4) If I was a Latas campaign person, I'd be scrambling to get in a public debate with these two women, pull a Paul Tsongas and when it started getting nasty jump into the middle and talk about how important it is to respect your opponents and engage a disenchanted public. Of course this means the Latas supporters have to stop jumping on EVERYTHING trying to draw blood. Seriously - hold your fire for a little and see if taking the high ground is going to give your fledgling candidacy a boost. Hell, if the fight they get into is about clean elections - show your support for them and then pivot to issues that are more important and need to be addressed NOW.

5) Party leaders need to find ways NOW to address the embarassment that is the supporters of D CD 8 candidates fighting and the potentional fo the candidates themselves to go negative (again negative means personal, not talking about why a candidate shoudldn't earn support). I read how in Massachussetts a panel was commissioned by the party, which included Dukakis and other big name notables, to determine if ads etc were NEGATIVE. And if they were - they will come out and criticize the person who did it. Not sure if this is a good idea (might perpetuate the pissing matches) but maybe a littler deterance would go a long way. Aside from that - we need to see a bunch of CD8 social gatherings toward issues we all care about to show how disagreement in a primary is fine - but we all need to be working on the same team NOW on other issues, and against the GOP nominee the day after the primary ends.

6) How badly do you guys wish you had a Harry Mitchell down there!

Look, I get it. I'm not from CD8 so maybe this is none of my business and I'm butting in where I shouldn't. But here is the deal - this is my state too, my country too - and the potential we have in CD8 to get a democrat in office to help Grijalva, and Pastor, and maybe even Mitchell is way too precious to be blown with petty supporter fighting and disunity. So, I argue -- it is my business and I might as well say something now.

Go ahead ... flame away. What are the odds that there is someone out there who agrees with me on this!7/12/2006 05:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Crap -- I numbered wrong!7/12/2006 08:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|Mr. T,

I have to concur with your sentiment. Though you are correct, you're going to draw a lot of fire ;-)

Good luck to you and Harry. I'm rooting for him!7/12/2006 08:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Relax about the numbering, Mr. T, it has no bearing on your sound remarks, and concur with dogma's sentiment, save that I am not clear you will draw any fire.

We'll see. As this progresses I am finding it harder to avoid the conclusion that a "seasoned" (in this context) politician is doing what it takes to get elected, and that amateur opponents are desperately flailing away to strike a wound that draws blood.

I don't think they have. But as they try, with all these assertions and allegations we have read a dozen times, it is natural for those who support Giffords, like Roger, to respond, and of course it gets emotional.

My dander starts to rise when Patty starts accepting invitations that were never made, and in particular, when people start talking about "I have horrible secrets the republicans will reveal in time, but do your own research!"

Barring some development of real significance, and unlikely it will happen on these blogs, it looks like Giffords is walking into this nomination, with a whole lot of folks bitching every step of the way.7/12/2006 09:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Then again, maybe not a whole lot of folks.

Maybe a dozen or so bloggers.7/12/2006 09:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Yo Se Quien Soy|W|P|Mister T,

Amen! I agree with all of your thoughts and have been extremely worried about the aftermath of the Primary for my district. Bottom line is that the bloggers for Latas and Weiss need to stick to the issues, and quit being petty.7/12/2006 10:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|boredinaz, sorry for the name mix-up. I did mean you.

You don't know what Patty is for? I don't think you have been paying attention then. She has talked plenty on the campaign trail on what she is for. She has differentiated herself too.

I bet your candidate wishes he had moved on that Clean Elections issue. ;)

It is supposed to be Weiss's, Latas's and Giffords', but since the papers can't get it right, I just use their version. It has to do with the Z sound versus the S on when to add the 's or leave as s'.

Maybe the joke will be on all of us and Shacter will win.

sirocco, I see you completely avoided the issue once again, that he was a Wal-Mart PAID lobbyist.

Mister T, love your post. Nothing like a post bitching...about people's bitching. :)

Yo Se Quien Soy, "the bloggers for Latas and Weiss..." So you are saying Giffords' bloggers don't have to?

You all seriously crack me up. I love coming on here and TDP.7/13/2006 05:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Fedup,

No, I recognize the point you are trying to make, I just disagree with it.

The donation he made as an individual can't simply be attributed to Walmart. If the money came from Walmart, or a Walmart PAC then fine. The money came from his own pocket, that's a different matter.

Just bcause someone works for Walmart, even as a _paid_ lobbyist, doesn't mean they give up their rights to support individual campaigns as they see fit.

Given the money was apparently an individual contribution, it's most likely Giffords wasn't even aware it had been made until she saw a donor's list. It was probably mailed in, just like most individual donations are, and processed, just like most donations are, and whoever processed it probably didn't even recognize the name.7/13/2006 07:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TooBlue4U|W|P|So, Rex, "one vote" doesn't make a trend. Okay, I'll give you that. But her record as a business person doesn't help. Did she refuse to give her own employees bennies as a benevolent gesture - so they could get AHCCCS? That puts her solidly in the pro-business, anti-worker camp as far as this progressive is concerned.

As to the comment that GG gets "open-minded Repubs" to consider her.. That has been my main problem with her as a candidate if she were to win the primary. She's a conservative, so naturally she'd be appealing to moderates. Put her in the general against a republican and I say she loses because middle to left-leaners stay home because they won't be motivated for her and middle to righties will vote gop. Latas motivates, for sure. No denying that. But he sure hasn't got much traction in this campaign. I see this election from a much larger perspective than the party insiders who are so pissed that Weiss dare to compete against their heir apparent. The issue is that it's critical to the NATION to take this seat from the GOP. If the local demos would take a bigger picture look they'd see that, too. I don't think GG can win in the general and I think Weiss can. That's more important than local demos saving face because they jumped on w/ GG two years ago.7/13/2006 08:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|But tooblue4you...

When you say that she is conservative and pro-business, you gloss over the fact that she also has solid liberal credentials that attract me (as a liberal independent) and a host of others helping with her campaign. It has also attracted the endorsements of liberal organizations.

Here, again, is some of the record that attract left to center Democrats and that should make them want to turn our for her in the fall.

100% ratings from environmental groups.

100% ratings from Pro-choice groups.

100% ratings from disability and community action groups.

Go to www.vote-smart.org and look up her voting record on liberal and conservative issues. If you are liberal you will find much to like in Gabrielle Giffords.

I respect what Mr. T has said. I have been vocal but it has been to try to address these charges that she is so very conservative and won't be distinguished from the Republicans. That is just wrong. Period. No flame here, but the attempts here have been, again, to portray Giffords as somehow corrupt and conservative. It is very misleading.

Best to all.7/13/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Sirocco said: "Barring some development of real significance"...

You mean like voting?

I don't see how anyone can think Gabby is walking away with this nomination when all the polls (and please don't give me the BS line about there only being one poll -- we all know there are multiple polls) are showing Gabby with a big gap to make up.

As I've said before, half a million bucks of TV will go a long way, but Gabby has to pick off the undecideds by a 2-1 margin over Patty to make up that deficit. Not impossible, but certainly not easy in a 5-way race.7/13/2006 09:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|How much did Walmart, MCDonalds, and Bashas save when SB1065 died in committee, courtesy of Gabby and the Republicans?

Was it 10 million? 20 million?

Or just the $300 check Rip Wilson paid to stop a bill that would have made these corporations less of a welfare leach on Arizona taxpayers?

Gabby's people forget that this one vote did maximum damage:

to Arizona taxpayers
to uninsured workers
to Giffords for Congress

Her money started drying up, both over her Walmart/McDonald/Basha support to kill SB1065, and the perception that she is a snotty lightweight who cannot defend the indefensible (like the Gabber Bloggers,) regarding Clean Elections and special interest bankrolls.7/13/2006 09:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Meanwhile..Jeff Latas keeps on addressing the issues that CAN be solved.

These two catfighters are doing nothing to help ordinary American's who need Health Insurance and clean air to breathe.

Latas' is showing he is the only candidate serious about solving the issues that matter.7/13/2006 09:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|Jeff is a good candidate and a great person.

But he is not the only candidate who supports universal or single payer health care.

Francine Schacter and Alex Rodriguez also support this need. And we of course know that this is Patty's number one issue, while Jeff is touting the energy politics for his #1 bullet.7/13/2006 10:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Energy politics, Outlander, certainly, but don't forget his anti-war stance and his foreign affairs policy...which are linked.

As to that committee vote you keep bringing up. That would have never made it anywhere in either the House or the Senate. Sometimes legislators have other reasons for voting against a bill than what you are suggesting, which is protecing corporations.

I am sure you will get an explanation for that vote, but I am not sure you will care what it is.

Outlander is only interested in fictionally tying Giffords to corruptive corporate interests and is a lot less interested in her overall record...it appears.7/13/2006 10:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|Not so. Gabby does her own tying. Her overall record would show she votes with Steve Huffman about 2/3 of the time.

Research it, Roger. And then report the facts. What is the huffman:giffords voting ratio?

Is it better or worse than say, Marsha Arzberger? Marsha is at least as conservative as many of the Republicans.

Marsha voted against SB1065. Are all the horrible accusations regarding this vote the same for Marsha Arzberger? How did she get it so wrong?7/13/2006 10:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|AZYOULIKEIT:

The polls you keep mentioning do have Weiss in the lead. However, do not make the fallacy of projecting that the results of that poll mean anything at all for the future. It is a great fallacy to say that everything will remains the same and that someone has to count on the undecideds to break.

Polls are snapshots in time. The polls you speak of appear to present a picture of a person with a lot of name recognition already capturing attention with that name rec. The truth is that future snapshots could show Weiss leading by more or Giffords narrowing that gap.

If Giffords does, though, be big and aware what Mr. T. said (not "I pity that fool"), but that if Giffords or Latas narrow that gap...the release of that poll will only prove to them strong strong momentum and it will only prove to rock the campaign of Weiss.

Hope she intends on lower expectations...because she set them quite high.7/13/2006 10:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Just as an aside ... ain't it kind of fun to see how fast any post about CD8 on any reasonably well-read blog fills up with comments pretyt quickly?

So true. I'm not even in CD8 and I don't have a dog in this fight, but I've been sucked into the vortex these guys have created just by reading the posts.
Help!7/13/2006 10:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|fedup,
As i said earlier, i'm not in your district. i'm reading from up north of the Gila. So, think of me as someone who is only partially paying attention. A person who doesn't go to the candidate forums, trashes the junk mail before reading it, skims the daily paper and doesn't read blogs or volunteer. Y'know, the average voter.

Is this the impression you want to leave about your candidate? Think about it. (and that goes for all of you people, no matter who you support)7/13/2006 10:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Outlander claims that Giffords is more like Huffman than the rest of the democratic party. That she even votes with him 2/3 of the time.

I would take a look, again, a ProjectVoteSmart and look up both Huffman and Giffords under interest group ratings. On votes of interest to them, check out his ratings and hers.

I'll make it easy:





You will find similarities between the on pro-choice issues, but he rates lower some years than she does. You will also find her environmental record to be far more liberal than his (although he doesn't seem to chop trees either).

Cattlemen association...he does well...she got an F.

Come on...quit distorting.7/13/2006 10:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|Roger,

Blogs are snapshots in time, with archives.

Your analysis is so skewed, that the humor you inspire makes you seem like a pundit for the Daily Planet... on planet Bizarro.

Roger sez:
"The truth is that future snapshots could show Weiss leading by more or Giffords narrowing that gap.

If Giffords does, though, be big and aware what Mr. T. said (not "I pity that fool"), but that if Giffords or Latas narrow that gap...the release of that poll will only prove to them strong strong momentum and it will only prove to rock the campaign of Weiss.

Hope she intends on lower expectations...because she set them quite high."....

How many hypotheticals not based on any fact can you count dancing in the above mentioned quote?

To paraphrase the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance:

When the hypotheticals become facts, print the hypotheticals.

From Liberty Valance:

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend,"

None of Roger Krals hypotheticals are facts... facts are for reporters, not pundits and politicians.7/13/2006 11:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|Roger, get Gabby and Huffman's records, not summaries of their overall votes.

Their records are not a summary from VoteSmart.7/13/2006 11:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Sorry, Roger, but asking folks to stop distorting is like asking them to stop breathing.

This is 7/13, so we're down to two months. On 9/13, this whole thing changes.

Got an invite just now to Huffman 7/22 shindig featuring our current Congressman Kolbe. Thought about going (have never met Huffman) until I saw the suggested contribution of $250 a pop.

That's six bottles of Laphroaig.

By the way, this entire thread consists of 16 people. Not sure what to make that mean except what many have already noted--this election is not decided on blogs.

Found it interesting that the latest kos attack by the Weiss squad drew only six comments (so far, after 4 days), three by her own people and a few nay-says from Latas folks.

IMHO blogs (or whatever they morph into) will become important, but not in this election.7/13/2006 11:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|azyoulikeit, that quote you lead your last post with should have been attributed to x4mr, not me.

Having said that, I don't think anyone has claimed Giffords is "walking away" with anything.

oulander refers to one vote to kill a bill in comittee, and claims it somehow cost millions of dallars in funding ... for a bill that was so flawed it's original sponsor voted against it, had no means of enforcement anyhow, and would still have had to pass a general floor vote (which outlander seems to forget), which wasn't gonna happen anyway.

Outlander, I haven't taken the time to research this, but I suspect you could take just about any two members of the legislature at random, research all their votes, and find they vote the same way well over half the time.

There are many issues that tend to pass (or get voted down) with large majorities from both parties, which would skew results in that direction.

Just an off-the-cuff thought ... I haven't look at any real numbers to test this.7/13/2006 12:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I haven't claimed that Giffords will walk away with it either. I do think that expectations can indeed be meaningful...if exceeded...or not met. As Mr. T. asserted so well earlier.

The fact that I was stating was that polls are snapshots in time and reality can change a day, a week, or a month later. We can't count on the same folks who said they support any candidate to remain that way and we can't count on undecideds to break anyway or remain undecided.

The prediction you make from this is based on that moment when those likely primary voters were called. Some have never heard of Jeff Latas or Gabrielle Giffords. But they will. A lot had heard of Patty.

All else I said was indeed hypothetical and analysis. That's all...I admit it.

Since you lead off saying that blogs are archived, you can come back and make fun of me more later (smile).7/13/2006 12:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Outlander said regarding single payer health care:
"And we of course know that this is Patty's number one issue,"

Bull%$#@ outlander. She has stated publicly that federal clean elections are her number one priority. (Although she did in the early forums talked about health care-but then she started nailing Gabby on her clean elections non-use) I have heard it and others on the blogs have heard it as well.

Well, unless she is switching around...again...7/15/2006 10:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Weiss has always said health is her number one priority, not issue.

A distinction where nothing can be solved regarding her priorities if the issue of campaign financing is never reformed.

How can you reform health care when all of the HMOs have paid for the campaigns of people like Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton.

Jeff Latas can't get his priority of lessening energy dependence and its complexities past the lobbies of Congress, unless the lobbyists can only advocate, not pass checks along with their requests.

Either way the irony is that for either health care reform or energy reform, you must serve on the Energy and Commerce committee to effect any meaningful change.

Either Jeff or Patty would be great on this committee in Congress.7/15/2006 02:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|Call her and ask her George.7/15/2006 06:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger judnag|W|P|The Weiss Campaign is desperate - they can't raise money and can't get the support they thought they had. Weiss's ridiculous attack on Giffords at the Nucleus Club was childish and foolish - and her information was absolutely wrong. I'm supporting Giffords because of her solid record - fighting for us, the people!7/16/2006 03:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Hey, those HMO's aren't just paying for the campaigns of Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton, they are paying for the campaign of Patty Weiss as well.7/11/2006 05:50:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Okay...I took pictures at the minimum wage rally at the IBEW hall yesterday. This is one of the better pictures I got, because, as Supervisor Richard Elias said, I was standing in the back with the "sweaty people." Of course, sweaty people is what this was all about: people that dig our ditches, change our bed pans and serve us our hamburgers. The rally was in support of an initiative that would raise our minimum wage to $6.75 an hour. John Edwards's line that was quoted over and over again:
I'd like to see that crowd in Washington that votes against raising the minimum wage try to live on $5.15 an hour.
Point taken. By the way, Senator Jon Kyl voted against raising the minimum wage (six times!), but voted for a hike in his own pay. Speakers included AFL-CIO official Rebecca Friend, Sen. Gabrielle Giffords, Jim Pederson, Rep. Raúl Grijalva and even Rep. Steve Gallardo drove down from Phoenix to speak to the crowd. Gallardo has introduced minimum wage bills at the legislature, but they don't get a hearing. So much for "working class conservatives." KVOA teased the story by waying that "Raising the minimum wage may be a 'no brainer'...", which was Pederson's line at the rally. From the teaser, it made it sound like there were all sorts of aggrieved buisinessmen in town that hate raising the minimum wage. Instead, the story featured two buisinessmen, one who supported the wage hike, and the other that had concerns but didn't seen that opposed. So, if KVOA (not exactly a bastion of labor activism) couldn't find any buisiness opposition, why do Republicans keep voting against it? By the way, the speech was wide ranging. It was as if, I dunno, Edwards was running for office. Naw, can't be. NB - The Star printed a quote from a flack for the Goldwater Institute:
Do you think King George was giving handouts to the American colonists?
Hm...I don't know how many American Colonists King George employed, and I don't know if they worked for minimum wage.|W|P|115266743569070089|W|P|John Edwards|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/12/2006 09:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I am so confused. What the heck was Olsen trying to say there? She wants the US to become more like the monarchical colony it used to be? Huh?

Those people put the irony in the term 'think tank.'7/11/2006 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Greg Patterson over at Espresso Pundit found a story on a website called American Chronicle. First off, the article claims that Sheriff Joe Arpaio's rather unsuccessful illegal alien round up didn't work because of interference from the Mexican Consulate. It couldn't be because the whole thing is driven more by publicity than actual law enforcement, right? But the part that Patterson decides to emphasize and quote is an allegation that illegal aliens are funding the campaigns of Janet Napolitano and John McCain. This is ridiculous on so many levels. Let me get this right though: people that are being hired precisely because they can get paid less than American workers are throwing enough money at politicians that it is influencing their decisions? Yeah. That sounds right. One of the sillier memes that some Republican activists and elected officials have bought into over the last few years is that Napolitano and Raúl Grijalva only won on the votes of "illegal aliens." That's right, these guys are crossing into our country, hiding from authorities, but they register to vote and give money to politicians. Makes perfect sense. I hope that Patterson is repeating these allegations to show how ridiculous they are. It seems that any politician who gets any sort of Hispanic support has this one thrown at them these days. Somehow, they see Hispanics supporting a candidate, and assume that they all hopped the fence last week. I am not sure if they throw this around to discredit politicians who they don't agree with, or if they buy into the bias that all Hispanics, citizens or not, are illegitimate Americans.|W|P|115263030006578811|W|P|If You Don't Agree With Me, You Must Be an Illegal Alien|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/11/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Sorry, tedski, but i think you're giving Patterson too much credit. Whenever he sees a story he thinks is out of line or unsupported by the facts, he picks it apart from the headline to the last period. He's done it many times and he isn't shy about it (especially when it comes to Arizona Republic columnist Jon Talton, who he was stalking for a while).

The fact that he posted long quotes from it and linked to it w/o any more comment than "is this true?" and "read for yourself" means he's taking the chicken's way out, wanting others to believe that nonsense but not having the cojones to put his considerable analytical skills to use.

It's a copout.7/11/2006 01:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|On the other hand, this could be a good thing. Under the theory that 'anything those Mexicans do must be wrong' maybe right wingers will stop voting and donating to politicians in protest.7/11/2006 06:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Michael you are very close. We did stop donating thanks to clean elections. A few $5 bills here and there and we’re done.

Stop voting? Dream on.7/11/2006 07:23:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Former Dr. Drew sidekick Adam Carolla seems to have found the right way to handle Ann Coulter. Click here, does contain some foul language. NB - Adam "apologized" later. Scroll down to "Ann Coulter Fallout."|W|P|115262861370249054|W|P|Now, If We Can Just Get More People to Do That|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/10/2006 05:39:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was glad to see that some of our state's media have picked up on the Jon Kyl Supreme Court story. Well, now the Arizona Democratic Party has an online petition demanding that Kyl apologize for inserting a phony colloquy between him and Sen. Lindsey Graham, and then trying to use that as evidence before the Supreme Court. The party, in their petition, demands that Kyl appologize on the floor of the Senate or he can, their words, "insert his written apology into the congressional record." Geez, no need to be such smart alecs, fellas. That's my job. You can sign the online petition here.|W|P|115257901861324497|W|P|Jon Kyl Petition|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/10/2006 09:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Keep trying. The race is no longer even in the top 10 according to Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post.7/10/2006 09:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Chris Cizzila is a meathead.

I think you Republicans have said the same thing in 2004 when he was predicting the Democrats would take back the house.

Then again, aren't you Republicans reading the moonie rag??7/10/2006 10:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I would respond George but between all your invectives I was not able to understand what you were trying to say.7/11/2006 06:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Regardless of whether Kyl will win or lose (IMO he'll win easily), it doesn't change the fact his little attempted rewrite of history was disgustingly manipulative, and clearly merits censure.7/11/2006 02:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|phx kid,
Okay, so we Democrats have a long way to go. The truth is, Jon Kyl has been in lockstep with the Bush Administration and logic says he should be about as popular as Bush. But, of course, logic does not prevail in the Senate or the House because most voters never examine the voting records of their representatives. In fact, at least half the electorate doesn't vote. This explains the power of incumbency.

However, we Democrats understand that we have to just expose the Republicans one lie and deception at a time. Sooner or later it will make a difference.

Just a little something for you to think about on your way to Wal-mart in your SUV, happily listening to your Toby Keith CD.7/11/2006 03:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Just a little something for you to think about on your way to Wal-mart in your SUV, happily listening to your Toby Keith CD.

That condescending stereotype is proof positive that Democrats have a long way to go.7/11/2006 06:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|What's really sad is that the stereotype fits, condescending or not. Isn't that the whole point of being a middle class Republican? Get your opinions from Fox News and talk radio, put a yellow ribbon on the SUV to "support the troops," and its off to the races (NASCAR, usually).

Can you define "plutocracy?" Look it up, friend.7/11/2006 11:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Liza,

I drive a 4-door sedan and I listen to http://www.switchfoot.com/. I don’t even know who Toby Keith is.

Last I checked Bush beat Kerry in ’04 54.9% to 44.4%. Even so Kyl is not in lock step with the president. He actually supports enforcing the border.

I do shop a Wal-Mart. In fact I love the store. I can tell you that I rarely see so many alternatively-abled people and such a broad mix of ethnicities shopping at any other store. Go ahead and attach people who shop at Wal-Mart. You are criticizing one of the broadest cross sections of society. It just shows how much of a prejudiced elitist you are.7/13/2006 01:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|You listen to switchfoot.com in your car?

By the way Cook's Political Report changed their assesment of the AZ Senate race from "likely Rep." to "leans Rep."


Another "elitist" who doesn't support Walmart's use of sweatshops and slave labor.7/13/2006 03:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|phx kid,
Toby Keith is a former Texas oil field worker who morphed into a country music singer/songwriter. You would probably have to be very drunk to appreciate his music but he achieved some mainstream media attention by releasing a CD entitled "Shock'n Y'all" sometime around the invasion of Iraq.

Bush's popularity has declined since the '04 election, as you must be aware of, because even the mainstream media has reported approval ratings as low as 31% within the last six months.

Jon Kyl is most definitely in lockstep with the Bush Administration for the last six plus years and his voting record speaks for itself. He has been 100% behind the radical right wing idealogues who have taken control of this country. So, if you like where the Bush Administration has taken us, vote for Kyl and get more of the same.

If Kyl deviates from Bush on border enforcement, then its because he is saying what he thinks he needs to say to placate his Arizona supporters while he's trying to get re-elected. If re-elected, he will tow the party line, make no mistake about it.

Like I said, its tough to beat an incumbent, but mid-July is very early to predict anything for a November election. I think that the two most important factors in the Kyl/Pederson contest are voter turnout and the public exposure of Kyl's voting record.

We'll see, huh?7/13/2006 06:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|liza

if you like where the Bush Administration has taken us, vote for Kyl

I am not saying the Bush administration is perfect. No presidency is. It’s just when I compare Kyl, a classic conservative, to Pederson I’ll take Kyl.

I still think the Democrats are the party of higher taxes, weak national defenses, higher regulation, gun-control, abortion-on-demand, failing government schools, slack border enforcement and amnesty for illegals. Nothing Pederson has said changes my view of what his party represents and what he will vote for if in Washington.7/15/2006 12:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, I just want to congratulate Ted.

Since no one else has commented on it, I will-- I'm glad the Jon Kyl muppet is back.


Wasn't it called 'the American way?' or something like that? And as I recall it dealt mostly with September 11 and the perpetrators. I just remember the line, 'I'm gonna put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.'7/10/2006 05:10:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, I was watching the World Cup Final over at a bar on 6th St. Needless to say, the bar was quite, shall we say, sectarian. It wasn't quite a Glasgow Old Firm Derby, but emotions were running high, and the place was definitely split between the Azzurri (The Blues) and Les Bleus (The, um...Blues). Up on the screen pops a shot of one of the skyboxes, and there is President Bill Clinton watching the game. The place errupted with cheers. It was as if a goal got scored. I tried to crane my ear to hear a single dissent and got none. I have a feeling that our current president would not have gotten the same reaction from the place.|W|P|115253405741192357|W|P|One Political World Cup Observation|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/10/2006 09:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Do you think it was Chelsea's idea to go or Bill's? I can't decide.7/10/2006 01:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Our current President? Heck, when he goes to Europe, he is now so paranoid that he even has his poop collected, classified and flown back to America, and has a food taster.

He must have some inkling of how he is perceived over there if he feels he has to go to those security extremes.7/10/2006 02:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|*sniff*

i miss bill7/10/2006 04:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Funny thing Eli...I wasn't talking about the German crowd reaction...I was talking about the reaction of the folks here in the bar.7/10/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|So, what is your prognostication on the impact of the World Cup on the CD 8 race?

I hear that one of the campaigns is in a panic over that French guy getting red carded.7/10/2006 05:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|That "French Guy" is the great Zinédine Zidane. Sheesh.

Avoir du Pois! or something to you...MoFo.7/10/2006 07:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Wow Tom, even I know who Zizou is and what a great player he is/was since he is retiring.7/08/2006 08:24:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Those of you that have been watching the World Cup on Univision may have noticed an ad running called "Es Tu Equipo." You can check out the ad here, and a second ad is here. The idea of this ad is to speak to new Hispanic citizens who don't yet necessarily have a party affiliation and tell them a little bit of what the Democratic party is about. In the past, the Republican party has used NFL and NASCAR broadcasts to great effect: "branding" themselves with those sports. The ads are running in nine markets, including Phoenix and Tucson. How successful will it be? I don't know, but I'm glad someone is trying it. The ads are accompanied by a website with a simple "platform" in Spanish and English that resembles the one that Howard Dean trumpeted at his latest appearance in Tucson. Also, you can order jerseys and game balls from the site. The ads are being run by the New Democrat Network, a group run by former Democratic Leadership Council operative Simon Rosenberg. Despite the image held by many progressives that the DLC is this monster machine that manipulates every election, on closer inspection, one would find that they are a heck of a lot more effective getting op-ed pieces written than electing anyone. Rosenberg founded the NDN as a way of building an effective grassroots presence, and quickly ran afoul of leaders in the DLC who didn't think that such a thing was all that important. Rosenberg's final break came when he supported Dean's campaign for the presidency. He now considers himself a "non-denominational progressive," and is interested in helping Democrats of all stripes. The ads are running outside the big media markets (the largest seem to be Denver and Phoenix, and the cities are entirely in the West). Is there a plan to expand the penetration later, or is the strategy to work "under the radar" of our East Coast political media? NB - Interestingly, there is an anti-soccer strain among Republicans. Some of this is driven by xenophobia, and some of it is driven by the belief that football is the true way to train American young men for "manly" pursuits. Rush Limbaugh often goes into rants against it, doing things like accusing the US Women's team of cheating in the 1999 World Cup and pulling out studies on neck injuries from headers. Former NFL great Jack Kemp took to the house floor back in 1986 to speak out against a US bid to host the World Cup:
I think it is important for all those young out there, who someday hope to play real football, where you throw it and kick it and run with it and put it in your hands, a distinction should be made that football is democratic, capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport.
I always found this ironic, because there are few non-governmental institutions in this country more dependent on state support and run in a more socialistic way than the NFL. I have heard it noted that the ads feature the voice of Andrés Cantor. That announcer doesn't sound much like him.|W|P|115241876693443872|W|P|As Long as Demócratas Unidos Don't Pick Up Donovan, I'm Okay With It|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/08/2006 08:08:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Sen. Joe Biden was caught saying something incredibly stupid and offensive on a broadcast of Road to the White House:
I've had a great relationship. In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking.
Um, yeah. Great. I've always considered Biden, the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to graduate from college, an arrogant jackass. Coupled with that arrogance has been an incredible breadth of knowledge of foreign policy. Unfortunately, for the next few weeks, all the press is going to give a darn about is this dumbass statement. As expected, the Democratic-leaning USINPAC is saying that the statement is not offensive, while the Indian American Republican Council finds it incredibly offensive. Funny thing with the IARC, they don't seem to have any problem with the villifying of Indian-American H1B Visa holders by Lou Dobbs and other prominent opponents of immigration, but they have a press release taking offense to Sen. Robert Byrd's not-even-year-long membership in the Ku Klux Klan more than sixty years ago. Well, I guess this sort of thing is to be expected. The thing I'm finding funny is that this becomes yet another reason for conservatives to themselves claim that they are an opressed minority group. Typical of these is this from a man named Kevin Martin of something called Project 21:
If one is conservative, even the most minor perceived slight can earn a place on the hot seat...Such generalizations are expected on "The Simpsons," but not so from the next potential leader of the free world. Unless, maybe, if you're a liberal.
Funny, Biden says something offensive about Indian-Americans, but almost immediately, conservative commentators paint themselves as the victims. This is the sort of whining that, from a liberal, inspires epithets like "lefty bed-wetter" and "crybaby" from the conservatives. I agree that what Biden says was offensive, but I can't take the conservative hand-wringing seriously. As soon as they make a serious effort to get rid of the racists in their own ranks, and stop trying to appeal to them, I'll start to listen. My problem is, when a Republican office holder says something offensive like this, it is much more likely to be backed up by actual policy. NB - Interestingly, the IARC press release on Byrd says that he was a "Grand Dragon" of the Klan, which is false. In the sixty years since, Byrd has regretted his membership in the Klan, which lasted a few months, and managed to get a 100% rating from the NAACP.|W|P|115237641945161838|W|P|Joe Biden on Small Business Owners of South-Asian Descent|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/07/2006 08:04:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Say what you will about Jim Pederson's candidacy, but it has brought out a heretofore unseen brand of populism out in Arizona Republicans. One may remember that last year, Pederson was involved in what turned out to be a minor dispute with the Carpenters Union and Republican Party Chairman Matt Salmon jumped on that one, claiming that Pederson was an anti-union limosine liberal. Salmon made a huge rhetorical boo-boo though, he failed to show a contrast and talk about how supportive the Republican party has been of the labor movement in this state. Oh yeah, they haven't been, that's why. In a television appearance earlier this year, John Munger, an attorney who helps businesses get out of penalties for violating labor and immigration laws, said that he "had a problem" with a wealthy man like Pederson running for the Senate. Now, I look over at Epresso Pundit and Greg Patterson (who loves me despite how badly I treat him) took issue with an interview with Pederson in The Hill. He noted that Pederson took credit for spending $3 million on the Democratic Party's efforts in 2002 and alleges that Pederson and then Attorney General Janet Napolitano arranged for some sort of corrupt fundraising scheme before the campaign. Well, Pederson was the Chairman of the Democratic party. It would have been unusual for someone that was the probable nominee not to meet with Pederson before the campaign started. I can't imagine that Len Munsil or Don Goldwater never met with Salmon before they officially jumped in. The other thing that is interesting is that Patterson seems to take issue with the fact that Democratic Party money combined with Napolitano's money meant that he swamped that poor Matt Salmon, who only was able to spend a paltry $1 million. Interestingly, he fails to add any Republican money that was raised and spent that year. Their post-general election report for that year shows nearly $4 million spent by the State Republican party. If they couldn't win with that, then Patterson and company ought to take issue with how that money got spent. But, when did our state's Republicans start having trouble with how much money gets spent on campaigns? This sudden Ralph Nader pose seems to have coincided with the appearance of Pederson in our political scene. They may also do well to remember that Pederson helped bankroll the Clean Elections initiative, that has reduced the cost of state elections. If they are so concerned about all of this money being spent, they are going to jump right on board with that one, right? I didn't think they would.|W|P|115228663524784854|W|P|They Are For All Those Average Joes Who Pay Estate Taxes and Make Six-Figure Salaries|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/07/2006 08:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I clicked on the link to Espresso Pundit and almost fell out of my chair laughing at Patterson's post for today. Check it out. You can almost hear the panicked cries of the far right wing,
"The homos are coming! The homos are coming!"
They must feel so threatened at the thought of uniting bi-national gay couples, they're on the verge of divorce.7/08/2006 02:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|The thing that needs to be pointed out, and pointed out and pointed out is this (and unfortunately, Pederson would look bad if he came out and said it himself but everyone else should say it):

In this year of corruption scandals, and of Abramoff and DeLay and Duke Cunningham, and with Jon Kyl accepting millions of dollars over the past few years from special interests and corporations, who needed (and got) his vote-- I mean heck, they gave Kyl over a million dollars six years ago when he had no Democratic opponent at all--

Kyl is a compromised creature. Not only because of his decades in Washington, or because of how thoroughly special interest and PAC donations have pervaded every corner of Washington and he's been at ground zero soaking it all up for all that time, but because he owes. The people who make the big money donations have an agenda. And he's taken their money and delivered on their agenda. And they're giving him money again, and he will owe them, not us, the citizens of Arizona (where no one even really ever sees him except in election years.)

Jim Pederson is very rich. That means that unlike Duke Cunningham, he isn't going to Washington to get rich. It means that unlike the people who took money from Jack Abramoff, he doesn't need any money that has strings attached to it, so he's not taking it. And unlike Jon Kyl, he hasn't taken his positions on issues (and especially cast critical votes on them) because he owes anybody anything.

He may put it this way: Jim Pederson: I'll be an independent Senator.

The Kyl campaign may forget that the word, 'independent' means 'not being manipulated or controlled by others (particularly those who've given you money). They think it only means a political independent. They can be forgiven for forgetting the meaning though, because it's the opposite of Jon Kyl.

But what us out here need to say is this:

Jim Pederson: Too rich to be bought.

Correct. Direct. Concise.7/09/2006 01:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|You gotta be freakin' kidding me! Are you really that desperate, eli???

The great thing about this country is that the rich aren't the ruling class. You apparently would prefer to return to the days of aristocracy.

American House of Lords, anyone?7/07/2006 07:14:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|It's been noted on a few blogs that in J. D. Hayworth's Whatever It Takes, he names Henry Ford's "Americanization" proposal as part of the inspiration for his views on immigration. There are two examples in his book of this:
Henry Ford, a leader in [the Americanization] movement, said, "These men of many nations must be taught American ways, the English language, and the right way to live." Talk like that today and our liberal elites will brand you a cultural imperialist, or worse. But if you ask me, Ford had a better idea. Sadly, Americanization has given way to an insidious multiculturalism, the noxious idea that all cultures are equally valid and worthy... Henry Ford must be spinning in his grave.
Over three decades ago, Nathan Glazer and Daniel Patrick Moynihan asked, "To what does one assimilate in modern America?" In Henry Ford's day, we had a great big list of things. But if multiculturalism and diversity are valued above all else, the answer is you can assimilate however you want, or not at all.
Well, the trouble is, when Henry Ford endorsed "Americanism," it meant a lot more than making sure people learned English. This is from Ford's own writings:
To "Americanize" means, in our ordinary speech, to bring into sympathy with the traditions and institutions of the United States, but the Jews do not mean only the United States when they say "America." They mean also South and Central America-- where so many revolutions have occurred. There are large numbers of Jews in Argentina, and many are found in other countries. It would probably give a wrong slant to the fact to say that the Jewish leaders are wholly anti-America, but it is true to say that they are against the "Americanization" of the Jewish immigrant stream. That is, that the trend of "Americanism" is so different from the trend of "Judaism" that the two are in conflict. This does not indicate treason toward American nationalisms perhaps, so much as it indicates loyalty toward Jewish nationalism.
This makes it pretty obvious that Ford's views on immigration were closely tied to his racism against Jews. This is not to say that Hayworth is anti-Semetic, but he (or his ghost writer) needs to understand how quoting Henry Ford's views on immigration to support his views is opening up, as Former New Mexico Governor Bruce King used to say, a whole box of Pandoras. It makes paranoid liberals like me wonder what sort of people he wants to appeal to, and how far he wants to take this. Hayworth was one of many Republican leaders in this state that came out against the PAN initiative, partly because they were worried about charges of racism. I guess he isn't so worried about that anymore. I don't buy a lot of the arguments from the anti-immigrant crowd, but there are probably plenty of decent arguments out there for them to use without picking Henry Ford, so famously anti-Semetic that he was awarded with a medal by the Nazis, out as their Godfather. I'm giving Hayworth the benefit of the doubt here, he seems ignorant of large sections of our history and may not know anything about the "red scare" and anti-semitism that drove the anti-immigration movement of the 1920's. But, someone ought to ask him some serious questions about why he picked a racist like Ford as his model.|W|P|115228370329898012|W|P|J. D. Hayworth Needs to Pick Better Heroes|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/07/2006 08:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|I guess he isn't so worried about that anymore.

Correct. Anyone who thinks differently than he is a multi-culti politically correct liberal.

I would still like the Congressman to address just which cultures are superior to other cultures. He pointed out in his book that some are better than others, but neglected to give examples.7/07/2006 08:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Oh tedski,
You give Foghorn way too much credit. I doubt he was thinking at all. He just parroted something someone said to him and doesn't really understand it. "Americanism," after all, has six whole syllables! He can't be asked to ponder the meaning of that. Just saying the word will hurt his head.7/08/2006 02:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Oh, heck.

J.D. will certainly, if this is pointed out to him, find another American icon he can use instead of Henry Ford to make his points.

Like maybe Charles Lindbergh or Walt Disney?7/24/2006 08:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Ryan S.|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.7/06/2006 06:24:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Ann Coulter, your friend and mine, is in a bit of trouble. She has been caught lifting several passages from her last book from a number of sources without attribution. Pobrecita Ann! She apparently cribbed from papers like the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times, and also from her friends at the Heritage Foundation. This story has been circulating for a few days since the New York Post broke it on Monday, but it is only this morning that the not usually so quiet Coulter responded. As expected, she didn't actually address the charges, and instead accused the Post of a shake-down. I didn't say it made any sense, I just said it was her response. I suppose she did this because it would hard to accuse a paper founded by Alexander Hamilton and owned by Rupert Murdoch of being part of the "liberal media." Also, she accused the Post of becoming a tabloid. Maybe she hadn't noticed, but the Post has been a tabloid since 1942. Dave Astor of Editor and Publisher (note the citation) said it best when he said:
Of course, the Post could hardly be "reduced to tabloid status" since it is, in fact, a tabloid.
We'll see if her syndicate takes any action or if any of the papers that carry her column drop her for this. This sort of thing should be a career ender, but doesn't seem to be if you are a big enough deal: Mike Barnicle still works, but where is Patricia Smith? Given that I don't listen to KVOI much, or at all, actually, I missed Steve Aiken's last program. Aiken had an interview with Coulter about her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Aiken had just talked about it being his last show, and the story about his prosecution for having sex with an underage girl had even made national news. I find it hard to believe that Coulter knew nothing about his situation. So, guess what Coulter talked about? How we liberals are immoral, permissive and...well, you know the drill. Given why that was Aiken's last show, to say nothing about Coulter's own admissions about her personal life, isn't this a bit, I dunno, hypocritical? NB - Coulter noted that the guy that dumped salad dressing on Pat Buchanan was only a student at a "two year college." Great...she's on the show of the "Working Class Conservative" but takes this shot. Nice. But, she did note that the judge in the case was a "black female." Twice. I'm not sure what this was supposed to mean. I wanted to use the "borrowing liberaly" line, but found it was in the Editor and Publisher article. I decided to use it anyway, even though I was complaning about plagiarism and hypocrisy...|W|P|115219545230484245|W|P|Coulter Caught Borrowing Liberally|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/06/2006 08:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|From what I have read, her apparent plagarism extends to some of her articles as well as her recent tome.

The software used to help check up on the questioned passages is well-considered, and there seem to be enough disparate instances to show a trend. Hopefully her publisher takes it seriously enough to drop her, which would be a real professional embarassment (assuming Coulter is even capable of embarassment ... nothing to date has indicated hs is).7/06/2006 12:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|If she is borrowing from the San Francisco Chronicle and the L.A. Times, it sounds like they aren't exactly the monolithically liberal papers that the conservative pit bulls like to accuse them of being.

I wrote about Coulter in the wake of the 9/11 widows incident as follows (after properly attributing a letter I quoted, respecting both the original source and the first rule of writing):

No one has suggested that there is anything wrong with rebutting anything that the 9/11 widows (or others who have spoken out against Bush policy after suffering personal tragedy) say. For example if one of the 9/11 widows (or Cindy Sheehan, or Mary Tillman, or whoever else) quotes a statistic, anyone is welcome to dispute it, challenge it or rebut it with appropriate data. Coulter's frustration (and the frustration on the part of many on the right) is a product of the fact that it is difficult to find a way to attack people like this personally. Personal smears have long been a staple of the right wing attack machine, and Coulter stands out as one who simply is incapable of debating any other way. To ask her to seriously debate issues without resorting to some sort of personal attack is like asking Jay Leno to deliver his monologue without telling any jokes, or asking Mark Cuban not to talk about basketball. Coulter just isn't capable of debating issues seriously, so she has to resort to personal attacks. Maybe the 9/11 widows or the others will force her to actually consider how to debate issues on the issues (or at least expose how vacuous she is, once you take away her attack bludgeon).7/06/2006 02:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Art Jacobson|W|P|And here I thought the reference was a rif on "Drinking Liberally."7/06/2006 02:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Art Jacobson|W|P|And here I thought the reference was a rif on "Drinking Liberally."7/06/2006 07:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Here you go Tedski. Just what you were waiting for. (I guess they were actually crying wolf so they could get more than needed.)

http://www.azpolicy.org/ff.php?id=3797/08/2006 01:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger jrm|W|P|Masochistically read the opening pages of her book, Godless. They are taken verbatim from paragraph 1, chapter 1 of Joseph A. Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. However, Coulter substitutes "liberalism" for "Marxism."

Accusing her of unattributed quotations is a little bit like accusing Jeffrey Dahmer of bad breath. The breezy equation of totally unrelated things, the snarling administration of egregious lies, the palimpsest of deceit--this is odious enough.7/09/2006 10:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tony GOPrano|W|P|Ted, you secretly love Ann Colter, I know it, everyone knows it. You can only dream of her Teddie, makes ya wanna be a Republican doesn't it? (ha ha!) Sorry there aren't any hot liberal babes you can dream of? Ann only goes with us GOP men; and the GOP don't stand for Grand Old Party either...LOL!!!7/10/2006 06:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Are you telling me that you guys actually find this woman "hot"?

Wow, y'all are different from us then. I don't find overly skinny, aging but still think they are 23 women sexy. Sorry.7/04/2006 08:16:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.|W|P|115202646072585913|W|P|Because It's Independence Day...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/04/2006 05:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|It's an honor to think the same way you think.

What is concerning is how many of those things seem to have a parallel today, what with the President usurping the powers of Congress and the Courts with his 'signing letters' that exempt himself 'if necessary for national security (he decides),' the taxation without representation of half a million Americans who happen to reside in the District of Columbia, for trying to hold people indefinitely or by tribunals which deny the right of trial by jury, including getting the 'precedent established' in court for U.S. citizens via the Jose Padilla case, for the process of 'rendition' by which alleged terrorists (he defines who they are) are transported in some cases beyond the seas for trial, for dividing people against each other, not yet to the point of insurrection, but certainly to the point of hatred, distrust and attempts at repression, and for changing laws so as to introduce elements of absolute rule.

No, not a perfect7/05/2006 12:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|The real question is how much has the modern Republican Party become like old England?

Bring me back the party of Ronald Reagan, of Teddy Roosevelt, old President Bush, the 1st. ANYTHING but a rights stealing, defiicit creating, war mongering Bush II.7/06/2006 02:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I used to teach the Declaration in intro. American Government classes. It was surprising how many college students had never read it, let alone dissected and thought about it. One of my professors from college used to call it "America's Statement to the World on Human Rights."

Unfortunately, I fear that few around the world believe us much anymore.7/03/2006 07:34:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, I walk into Democratic headquarters the other day, and I saw this button that said "Spitzer-Paterson 2006." I was a bit preturbed, I mean, why would we have buttons for Marc Spitzer and Greg Patterson? In my haste to be angry and everything, I didn't stop to think that there would be no "ticket" like this, nor did I notice that a "t" was missing. It turns out, the buttons were for the New York Democratic ticket of Elliot Spitzer and David Paterson. Oops. And speaking of Espresso Pundit, our man Patterson with two "t"s, he had a bit this weekend about Russ Jones, who's name may be struck from the ballot. I remember in the run-up to the law suit, it was alleged that he had signed off on the back of petitions he couldn't have possibly circulated since he was nearly 200 miles away in Phoenix. I don't know if this was the problem that finally got his signatures bounced, but it is rather common. It happens because either a candidate discovers that their volunteers did not sign the back of their petitions that they had walked, or a candidate wants to be able to brag that they got all the signatures themelves. Well, Jones may have a problem. The Democrats are also claiming that Jones would even be unable to run in a Republican primary as a write-in. This would leave the Republicans without a viable candidate against Amanda Aguirre. But, Patterson says:
The Republicans are going to have to work hard to mount an effective write in campaign for the Primary, but getting 207 write in votes isn't that difficult. It looks to me like this is just a bump in the road for Jones...and a fairly small bump at that.
It might be helpful to remind Patterson that getting 207 write-in votes may be easy, but it also shouldn't be that hard to get 207 valid signatures, right?|W|P|115193894697229580|W|P|Yes, Greg, I Suppose You Are Right, but...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/03/2006 08:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|You scared me for a second. I thought maybe Tom Patterson had left the Goldwater Institute.7/03/2006 06:36:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|We may be witnessing a watershed election in Southern Arizona. What is that? For the first time in twenty four years we will have an all Democratic delegation? Will Lena Seradnik be the first Democrat elected out of the Northwest side since Reed Ewing? Will our local papers actually cover the election? That may happen, but here is what I'm talking about: this may only be the second time since 1982 that Joe Sweeney, professor at the well known Alexander Hamilton Law School, will not appear on a congressional election ballot. A challenge to Sweeney's nomination signatures is being issued by Alan Lageschulte, who lives in Avondale. It is entirely coincidental, I'm sure, that former Avondale Mayor Ron Drake is the other Republican candidate in the primary. The attorney handling the case is former aide to Gov. FIfe Symington Lisa Hauser. She is experienced in election cases, she handled then Gov. George Bush's challenges to the results in Broward County, FL back in 2000. The only previous challenge to Joe Sweeney's candidacy was back in 1992, when Democratic candidate Jim Toeves (two Toeves references in one week!) took Sweeney off the Democratic primary ballot that year. This whole incident became more pathetic when Sweeney decided to run as a write-in in the New Alliance Party's primary, which had one member in the district. Sweeney didn't live in the district, but only needed to convince the single member of the party to vote for him in the primary. The guy apparently did not show up at the polls. I'm suprised that Sweeney's petitions haven't been challenged more often. He isn't too careful about who signs his petitions. For example, I was asked by Sweeney himself (twice!) to sign, despite the fact that I don't live in the district and am not a member of his party. These are both facts that I explained to him. Interestingly, Sweeney never tried to run as a Green or a Libertarian. Sweeney almost captured the Republican nomination in 2002, and actually was the Republican nominee in 2004. Hauser, a pretty high placed Republican opperative, is probably involved to save the Republicans the embarassment of having this guy represent their party again. One may remember that in 2004, local Republicans refused to cooperate with the racist and a bit unhinged Sweeney. Even though the local Republicans condemned him, the state party put his name and likeness on some materials, which gave the Democrats fodder for a few press releases. Lageshulte and Hauser are out to save Drake from the embarassment of being defeated by Sweeney in a primary. Far less embarassing to be beaten by Raúl Grijalva in the general election, I guess. When Sweeney won in 2004, the excuse that was given was that he has such great name ID, it was hard for the other candidates to overcome it. So, the fact that hundreds of his signs have been wheat pasted to newspaper boxes, dumpsters and any other vertical surface for the last two decades makes it so difficult for any candidate to run against him. I don't buy this as an excuse. If Sweeney wins a primary, it could be because a large number of Republican primary voters in CD 7 buy into his twisted views of the world and think that a man of his dubious qualifications would make a great congressman. I hope is is more because they don't pay a lot of attention when they vote, which is not saying a heck of a lot either. I am glad that Drake's people are getting him taken off of the ballot, though. We really don't need this guy involved in the political process.|W|P|115193387451369390|W|P|Sweeney Tossed?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/03/2006 07:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski,

What would give Lena Saradnik the slightest chance of winning in LD 26?7/06/2006 11:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|I disagree that we don't need Sweeny involved in the political process. One very important reason for political life is as a public morality tale. I can't think of a better one than the GOP being repeatedly bitten in the ass by the worst racist nativist prejudices that it appeals to. Sweeny lets voters know who the GOP really are, depite their protestations.7/07/2006 07:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Squib aka TwistedOreo|W|P|In 2002 I attended a Congressional debate where Sweeney and several others were speaking. He was asked about how to "solve" the illegal immigration problem...his answer, catch them, tattoo their foreheads and send them back across the border. The publisher of our local newspaper leaned over and asked us if he really said that and what the tatto should say...after a brief discussion, it was decided.."I crossed the border illegally and all I got was this lousy tattoo."
Needless to say, this guy is a nutjob.