As for federal health-care programs like Medicare, Graf said that after years of government involvement, the time could be right for citizens to “take control” in an effort to combat rising costs. “Perhaps government needs to get out of it,” he said.

Asked if he would support the elimination of Medicare, Graf did not reject the idea but said, “It’s not going to be done over-night.” And asked about what should happen in case of poor families who can't afford costly medical care, Graf said “hard decisions” will have to be made.

I recognize that Social Security will default on its obligations to future retirees unless fundamental reforms are made. Therefore, I will work and vote for a system of Social Security Choice that will allow younger workers to have the choice of investing much of their Social Security taxes in regulated individual retirement accounts. Current retirees and those nearing retirement would not have any change in their Social Security benefits. Social Security Choice will give younger workers the option of ownership of personal Social Security accounts, with higher rates of return and better benefits than are possible under the current system.

"It's not eliminating embryonic stem-cell research," Graf says. "It's just making sure that taxpayer dollars are not going into it."

10/26/2006 10:47:00 PM|W|P| Rex Scott|W|P|Ted-

I was at the debate tonight, too, which was on the topic of the federal role in education. Randy Graf demonstrated his utter lack of knowledge about the topic when he answered a question pertaining to 21st century workplace skills with a his usual 19th century rhetoric about the "three R's" needing to come back as the centerpiece of a school's work.

Randy also bemoaned the fact that schools are asked to be all things to all people, but neglected to remember how his votes in the Legislature against the Kids Care health insurance program, funding for prenatal care and all-day kindergarten made it even harder for public schools to educate all the children entrusted to them.

After making a bizarre claim that vouchers would save public schools both money and classroom space, calling for the abolition of the Department of Education and lying about Gabby's record on tax credits for teachers who buy classroom supplies, there wasn't much else Randy could do to better lay claim to Jim Kolbe's legacy of antipathy towards public schools and teachers. Although Kolbe still refuses to back Graf, they are cut from the same cloth with regard to their stand on education. Graf, at least, opposed the No Child Left Behind law that Kolbe voted to pass, but not fund.10/27/2006 11:15:00 AM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|Would have loved to attend this debate, since on the subject of Education Giffords can partake of Graf "fondue style" but alas, have a Thursday night commitment each week.

It also prevents attending the liberal drinking, much to my chagrin.

Was the place as well attended as Tuesday's debate?

My real question: Did GOP Cowboy Hat Lady go?10/28/2006 09:36:00 AM|W|P| Marco Alatorre|W|P|Enough of the scam rhetoric on stem cell research!

Embryonic stem cell research is not the way to go to cure diseases. It is inferior technology. Here is why. By definition embryonic stem cells would be generated from an individual that is different immunologically from the sick person you are trying to cure. So, you inject the cells derived from embryonic stem cells and you get an immune response that will attack and destroy your precious embryonic stem cell derived cells. What a waste!

The answer is to clone stem cells from the body of the sick individual. This is the best way to avoid the immune response. It is the way to create new body parts as needed. But the science of such somatic stem cell creation is in its infancy. We need to put our precious research funding into science that will be productive, not scam rhetoric that gives liberals an issue to run on and false hope to the sick.

But unfortunately for liberals, nobody opposes cloning somatic stem cells. So the liberals do not have an issue to run on. So liberals divert attention from truly promising technology and focus on inferior technology just so we can create a wedge issue for the election. Great!

The fact is that nobody wants to ban embryonic stem cell research. All the major drug companies are free to do all the embryonic stem cell research they want.

How would you feel to know that liberal rhetoric on embryonic stem cell research may actually cause federal money to be diverted to inferior technology at the expense of technology that can actually work?

Gabrielle Giffords knows nothing about science, she just parrots liberal scam rhetoric.

Science is not politics. There is no liberal or conservative science. You should be offended that liberals would tout embryonic stem cell research as a magic cure when they should know that it is just another scam to create a false issue for the election.

You should be offended that junk science is constantly being used by liberals to manipulate you.10/26/2006 06:09:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|District 25 is the most perfect example of why our current 30-district scheme in the legislature is inadequate. It looked as though the Independent Redistricting Commission piled every Southern Arizona community they couldn't figure out what to do with into one district. It includes most of Cochise County as well as Nogales in Santa Cruz County, then moves up to take in the Tohono O'odham Nation as well as exurban Phoenix. Heck, any district that includes exurban Phoenix and exurban Tucson is probably not well drawn. The district, although marginally Democratic, has a split delegation, with Republican Jennifer Burns representing it along side Sen. Marsha Arzberger and Rep. Manny Alvarez. When this race started, Pat Fleming and Richard Boyer, both from Sierra Vista, emerged as candidates. Boyer has since decided to run for Corporation Commission. I think when this thing started, people didn't give Fleming much of a chance. I knew better, though. When I was with Wesley Clark's campaign, Fleming was our top volunteer in Cochise County and managed to put together a great operation out there. We had a fantastic rally with Clark in Sierra Vista, and in the end we came within 331 votes of winning, which given how John Kerry pounded us in the rest of the state was pretty good. Fleming has put on a great campaign, and now internal polls are showing that she can win this thing and the district will once again have an all Democratic delegation. This also makes the math for Republican hopes for a veto-proof legislature a bit harder. Another good sign for Fleming: Arizona List, a group that supports Democratic women running for office, refused to endorse Fleming for most of the race. Earlier this week, however, they sent an e-mail to their members asking that they help Fleming. This leaves Burns out in the cold. Some polls are showing that she could very easily come in fourth behind former Rep. Gail Griffin. Burns has voiced her frustration that the Democrats are running a candidate against her at all, given that she has been a moderate. As far as Republicans go, Burns has been one of the good ones, but when her party is on the hunt for a 2/3 majority, which would render her moderation useless, it is silly to think that we would leave any Republican untargeted in a Democratic district. It seems that Burns's issue is really with people in her own party, who recruited a candidate to knock her out in the primary and who seem to be more eager to help Griffin. I'm not sure why it is the Democratic Party's job to rescue her. NB - How can I talk about District 25 without recognizing the anniversary of the OK Corral gunfight, where Republican Wyatt Earp used a local gun-control statute as a pretext to gun down several Democrats.|W|P|116192148065010922|W|P|District 25 Update|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/27/2006 12:38:00 AM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The question is, is it true? Because I have always disliked Wyatt Earp and never been able to say why.10/28/2006 11:28:00 PM|W|P| TimWilsonAZ|W|P|In all fairness, Republicans were the liberal ones back in Wyatt Earp's days. Most of the Clantons and McLaury's were former or sons of former Confederates.10/26/2006 03:58:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| New numbers from a KVOA/Arizona Daily Star Zimmerman poll that will be released tonight:

Gabrielle Giffords (D-Tucson) - 48.2% Randy Graf (R-Green Valley) - 38.2% Undecided - 10.5% Jay Quick (I-Tucson) - 1.6% Dave Nolan (L-Carpetbagger) - 1.5%

Graf has gained slightly since the last Zimmerman poll, but given the hammering that he has been delivering Giffords in radio and television ads, you'd think that she'd have some significant slippage. 39.4% of the district's voters are registered Republicans. It is hard to judge this without looking at the crosstabs, but it seems like Graf's support among independents and pinto Democrats is negligible at best since his polling number only barely reaches this. Giffords, on the other hand, is doing far better than the Democratic registration of 34.0%. I suppose I'll read on the Republican blogs that:

• These numbers are phonied up by a Democratic polling firm.
• Graf's miniscule movement up is an indication of a massive surge of support.
• It's all lies because "I Don't Know Anyone That Likes Giffords."
• It's okay, because there is a second "secret" poll that shows Giffords coming in third.

At what point do the Republicans realize that blaming every problem on the "brown hordes" ain't flying, even with people that live near the border?|W|P|116190647411592479|W|P|New Numbers From CD-8: Sorry Guys, Giffords Still Ahead|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/27/2006 08:37:00 PM|W|P| Marco Alatorre|W|P|I don't believe the liberal poll. They are just trying to control the election... trying to make Graf look hopeless in an effort to keep people from voting.

Have you given any thought to what a disaster Giffords would be in Congress?

She would march in lock step with Pelosi, Kennedy, Schumer et al. .. all extreme leftists.

Maybe you haven't thought about an agenda that would mean steal from the middle class and give to special interests.

Giffords is a multi millionare, do you really think she is going to tax the rich?

Do you know anything about Gabrielle Giffords as a person?

Did you know that she recently rear ended a minority U of A student in her car and when he got out of the car and showed her that he had hurt his neck and wanted to call the police she refused and kept talking on her cell phone?

She told him that it was just a minor accident and that she had to get going. And when he again asked her to call the police she asked him "do you know who I am?"

Can you Imagine her arrogance?

To ask "do you know who I am?" to someone that she has just injured in an auto accident?

Like her time was worth more than making sure that this injured student was OK and had proper documentation of his injury for his insurance.

She had to be asked to call the police a dozen times before she called the cops and then she was cited for speeding.

Gabrielle Giffords is just another spoiled rich kid who is pretending to be for the common man.

Make no mistake, she is a liberal masquerading as a moderate who will tax the middle class, not the rich, in order to achieve her liberal agenda.10/27/2006 10:27:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Do I know anything about her? I've known her since I was eleven years old. Do you have anything else to tell me about her?10/26/2006 10:06:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Letter in Today's Citizen:

I cannot believe the Citizen has chosen Ted Prezelski over Bruce Murchison for state legislator. Hasn't Murchison shown good potential with his three education proposals? His district and education, as a whole, are his passions. What is Tucson becoming when we fail to elect the best and the brightest? Jade Stokes

The funny thing is, the Citizen didn't endorse me in either one of my runs for public office, so I don't know what he's talking about.|W|P|116188272706842154|W|P|Note: He Wears Chuck Taylors, I Wear Sambas|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/30/2006 02:05:00 PM|W|P| Bruce P. Murchison|W|P|He had you confused with your brother.10/25/2006 06:50:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, both the Washington Post and the Associated Press have stories out about the federal investigation of Rick Renzi's land swap. This morning, a story about the deal appeared in the Arizona Republic. My question is, why does it seem the Republic is the last to know? Last week, the Republic issued a fawning endorsement of Renzi. Ironically, one of the things that they praised him for was land-swap legislation. The New Times, the Arizona Daily Sun and even the Sierra Vista Herald had already run stories on land swap bills that, even if one didn't know about the legal problems, smelled fishy. So, why did our state's paper of record give an endorsement of the guy if this was afoot?|W|P|116178485824543421|W|P|Where Was the Republic?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/25/2006 08:40:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Kid-

Here is what I had said:

The allegation that is being discussed in political and press circles up in Phoenix is that Paul Charlton, a Bush appointee, is sitting on the indictment until after the election.

It was being discussed, right?10/25/2006 09:14:00 AM|W|P| eckeric|W|P|Perhaps they were having trouble deciding which probe to report on: Federal authorities in Arizona have opened an inquiry into whether Representative Rick Renzi introduced legislation that benefited a military contractor that employs his father10/25/2006 05:09:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, I put up a post on 'excercising due caution and diligence' on my blog in regard to the investigation (though I'd done the land deal story much earlier.) So I admit being TOO cautious in that regard (though I've named the blogger who broke the story in a post today.)

That said, it has to be embarrassing to the editors of the Republic to endorse Renzi and then have this drop in their laps just ahead of the election.

And Eckeric: Maybe both probes are just a smokescreen and they are really investigating the Patty Roe scandal.10/26/2006 01:00:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|For their long record of failing to report on the numerous ethical lapses and scandals involving Rick Renzi, the Republic was sure quick on the draw this morning with a big article on page A-3 claiming the whole thing is a 'political trick.'

Sounds like Rick Renzi can pretty much fire his whole P.R. department and save some money, he's got the Republic doing all the work for him.10/25/2006 06:28:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Pauley Perrette, who plays the unlikely criminalist Abby Scioto on the CBS drama NCIS: Navy Criminal Investigative Service, seemed to endorse Barack Obama on her blog last Friday:

I just absolutely could not like this guy any more than I do. Jeez... Finally, a man I trust and respect. Love, love, love.

|W|P|116178357092502291|W|P|"That Cute Goth Chick From NCIS" Endorses Obama|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/25/2006 09:24:00 AM|W|P| Liza|W|P|I agree with Pauley. It may be a little early for Obama in 2008, but a Democratic dream team for President and Vice President would be Al Gore and Barack Obama.

Otherwise, its career politicians all the way unless somebody new drops from the sky. I know everyone will think, "Al Gore is a career politician", but I believe that six years of not being a politician has given him some new perspectives.

However, I have very little hope that anyone other than Hillary will get the Democratic presidential nomination and then one of the two things will happen:
1. Hillary loses and we get a Republican president.
2. Hillary wins and we get a Republican president.10/25/2006 04:55:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I cannot understand the sudden massive drooling on Barack Obama.

The guy is cool and all that but I think this is media hyping more then anything.10/26/2006 08:55:00 AM|W|P| Liza|W|P|Hmmm. I'm starting to think that Senator Obama might have the girlie vote. Add that to the African Americans (and probably all other minorities) as well as anyone who even tries to use their brain and we might have a contender.10/27/2006 12:44:00 AM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|But I have heard him speak three times Mexilina.

1. First Pederson Ralley at ASU
2. That evening's fundraising dinner (Hall of Fame or Heritage, forget which)
3. Monday10/27/2006 08:45:00 PM|W|P| Marco Alatorre|W|P|Obama is going nowhere! Just like other liberal darlings like Gray Davis.

Remember the days when self righteous bourgeois liberals used to say "we will all be liberated when we have a black pregnant pope"?

Same thing here. Silly drivel.

Oh yeah, we have to play the race card. But you forget, the Dem party already has 90% of the black vote!

Having a black on the ticket will only work with Republicans.10/27/2006 10:33:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Marco -

I don't remember any Democrat of any consequence whatsoever saying such a thing.

I do, however, remember reading statements by Pat Robertson condemning the Papacy and Catholicism and visits by Republicans to Bob Jones University, a university whose founders and current leadership have been venomously anti-Catholic.

Your turn.10/24/2006 07:41:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Bruce Merrill's KAET poll has been released, and it is up here. As I reported earlier, Jim Pederson is within the margin of error, and Jon Kyl still hasn't broken 50%.|W|P|116174459601786161|W|P|Pederson Within Six: Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have a Horse Race|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/26/2006 05:51:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|The NAU poll had a small sample and a huge margin of error. The ASU had a huge sample and a small margin of error. Between the two, it's fair to say the ASU poll is closer to an accurate snapshot of the electorate.10/24/2006 07:31:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Okay, the story I put up about Rick Renzi the other day that a bunch of you said I was wrong about? Well...I was wrong about one thing, it is not an indictment, but an "inquiry." Apparently, the AP has the story now. I couldn't find where it has been posted, but Renzi has apparently hired former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods as his defense attorney. And, of course, Renzi is carefully following his attorney's instructions and not saying anything.|W|P|116174377312753898|W|P|Renzi Hires Defense Attorney|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/25/2006 05:13:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|There's an irony. Wasn't Grant Woods one of those Republicans who endorsed Harry Mitchell a couple of months back because they are tired of the antics of J.D. Hayworth, Renzi's predecessor representing NE Arizona?

word verification: wwcubs

Maybe it means Renzi is going to go down as a loser.10/24/2006 05:47:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The talk among Democratic politicos today is that tonight's Bruce Merrill poll will show that Jim Pederson is within the margin of error of Jon Kyl. Actually, I heard that KUAT spent $10,000 on a poll, but when it showed Pederson ahead, they burried it. Would you believe, they spent an addtional $8,000 to build a titanium capsule, burried it in a secret location (The First Year Student Center, maybe?) just so us bloggers wouldn't find it. That's how Bill Buckmaster is.|W|P|116173864570126425|W|P|Pederson Closes?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/24/2006 04:21:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I love our Democratic elected officials that shun the party and endorse Republicans when it becomes convienient, but want to bathe in the reflected glow of a popular political celebrity when they come along. One of the many R-Cubed correspondents reported to me that Leah Landrum-Taylor and Phil Gordon showed up to the Get-Out-The-Vote Rally that featured Sen. Barack Obama earlier this week. Both Landrum-Taylor and Gordon have their faces pictured on a piece endorsing Republican Speaker Jim Weiers. This didn't make them too popular with the Democratic party, which organized the event. I'm not saying that neither one should have been able to attend, although it's pretty silly to ask people to cross party lines when it suits you, then show up to a partisan event in the hopes for a good photo-op a week later. Despite the problems that Landrum-Taylor's endorsement of Weiers has caused for the party's hopes of blocking a 2/3 majority for the Republicans, she chose to sit on the dais while Obama spoke about the need to get out and vote for Democrats. And people wonder why we lose elections.|W|P|116173330014177166|W|P|Well, I Guess You Can Admire Their Stones|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/24/2006 06:17:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Republicans all over the country are saying the phrase "Dennis who?" when it comes to Speaker Dennis Hastert. Candidates like Ron Lewis in Kentucky and Shelley Sekula Gibbs in Texas have said "no thanks" to a Hastert appearance in their, yes, Republican districts. Even Don Sherwood, who has been hounded by allegations that he beat his mistress, cancelled an appearance because he thinks that Hastert would give him a bad name. Well, apparently there is one candidate who thinks that Hastert is a stand-up guy. There is no "cut and run" from the speaker by our own Randy Graf. Hastert will be coming to town for a fundraiser for Graf. According to an invitation that got sent out, you can pay $250 for lunch or $500 for a picture with the speaker. Given that he won't be Speaker for very much longer, how much will that picture actually be worth? One can also pay $2100 to attend a "roundtable" with the Speaker. Gosh, a roundtable. A lot of dialogue will go on there, I bet. I'm saving the best part for last. The event happens next Tuesday. Next Tuesday is...Halloween. I leave the jokes there for y'all. I was thinking that someone should send a bunch of teenagers wearing blazers to the event. But naw, frontrunners don't need to do stunts like that. This gives Graf and Hastert a chance to compare notes on how to deal with ephebophiles in their organizations. NB - I used the title to finally make the H. P. Lovecraft reference that I have been waiting so long to make.|W|P|116169746702856547|W|P|Hastert the Unspeakerable Coming to Tucson|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/24/2006 12:50:00 PM|W|P| Lae|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.10/24/2006 03:58:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|I thought the national GOP bailed on Graf.

But then again, Dennis Hastert (who suggested just a few days after Katrina that they should bulldoze it all) probably isn't all that out of touch with Graf.10/25/2006 01:05:00 PM|W|P| Liza|W|P|Does anyone know why politicians so often are old, ugly white men with big guts?

Is there some unwritten rule that once in politics you must never exercise and you must eat enough for a family of four?

Just wondering...10/23/2006 08:56:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, I'm trying to decide that line between "spin" and, uh, totally made up BS. Take Katherine Harris, for example. So far, her campaign has made Stuart Starky's odd suicide mission against John McCain look like it was put together by Mark Hanna. Her people have been spinning tales of sure victory, however. Her campaign released the results of a straw poll that anybody, regardless of age, could vote in as a "poll" showing her ahead of prohibitive favorite Bill Nelson. Of course, given the way that Harris has been behaving, that may not be spin, but delusion. Crossing that line from spin to something a bit less pleasant to step in is Randy Graf's latest newsletter, which states:

In fact, our staff has learned that one of the nation's leading non-partisan political experts, Larry J. Sabato, of the University of Virginia, is now predicting Randy will win, keeping CD8 in the Republican column. As recently as late September, Sabato had called the contest between Randy and Gabrielle Giffords "a toss-up."

Well, that would certainly be a problem for Giffords, 'cept it ain't totally true. They are correct in as much as Sabato had, at one point, called the race a "toss up." Only a complete moron would have thought otherwise. As of Friday, Sabato moved the race over to "Leans Democrat." So, the only movement in the race, according to Sabato, has been away from Graf. As for the claim that Sabato is about to move the race back into the "toss up" category, exactly what is it that is supposed to have gone on since Friday that would make Sabato do that so soon after moving it the other way? Hey, Graf may be pulling ahead for all I know. After all, there is that secret KUAT poll, right? But guys, couldn't you phony up a source that, I dunno, isn't so easy for wags like me to debunk?|W|P|116166622147762577|W|P|I Think It Is Called Truthiness|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/22/2006 09:39:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This has already made an appearance on a couple of other blogs. I actually had this yesterday but, silly me, I wanted to confirm it first. This means I didn't get to break the story. Why must I insist on being ethical? Here is the story that is going around. The US Attorney's office has information that Rick Renzi told someone that he would only introduce legislation for a land swap if that legislation included land that belonged to a business partner of his. The New Times ran a detailed piece on the land deal but was unaware that the US Attorney's office was actually ready to indict Renzi for soliciting a bribe. The allegation that is being discussed in political and press circles up in Phoenix is that Paul Charlton, a Bush appointee, is sitting on the indictment until after the election. It would be hard to keep a lid on this thing now with this much buzz about it. If this is true, it looks like one carpetbagger's political career is over.|W|P|116157959928197855|W|P|US Attorney Office Playing Politics With an Indictment?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/23/2006 02:57:00 AM|W|P| Michael Bryan|W|P|While I hope this is true (it's massively juicy in so many ways), I have many doubts. I've contacted the AP report who is supposedly the source for this and am awaiting a response. The ultimate source for the leak is supposed to be a former staffer in Renzi's office (which doesn't seem likely that anyone other than a senior staffer would have sufficient access to know any of this).

In order for any federal indictment to be "sat on" it must be sealed by the presiding judge of the federal Grand Jury. The reason to do that is that the prosecutor would be in negotiations with the target to cooperate in the investigation or turn state's evidence. A prosecutor can't just "sit on" an indictment any other way, except by timing the submission of the evidence to the Grand Jury in the first place.

The FBI has allegedly interviewed Renzi (again, according to the AP reporter and the former staffer source, I assume). So far as I can determine there has been no confirmation or comment of any of this from the US Attorney's office, the FBI, or anyone else. I've also heard that there is an actual recording of Renzi suggesting a bribe for his support of the Sandlin swap from a warranted wiretap. The idea of the FBI tapping a GOP Congressman's office seems, well, unlikely.

Personally, I will not be at all surprised if this turns out to be complete bunk (which is why I haven't written about it on my blog yet). I find the credibility of a US Attorney breaking the law to protect Renzi absurd (even if the US Attorney is appointed by W). I find the idea that the US Attorney would seal the indictment to cut a deal with Renzi on a public corruption case also absurd. The focus of any possible corruption charges would be none other than Renzi. His cooperation really wouldn't be required, so there's no point in sealing anything. And sealing the indictment under pretense of potential cooperation to keep it under wraps would be highly unethical at best, purjury at worst. No judge would tolerate it.

So, overall, I find the story only barely plausible in its broadest outlines (there's a sealed indictment against Renzi for corruption). In its specific details, I find it ranging from outlandish to completely farcical. If there is a grain of truth to this rumor, it's a small one.10/23/2006 06:58:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Michael -

I found out about this Saturday afternoon, but I sat on it until I spoke to a couple of people who know a heck of a more about this than I do. I didn't speak to an AP reporter.10/23/2006 11:35:00 AM|W|P| Jane Arizona|W|P|Hmm, I just got a hit on my site from usdoj.gov. They're reading up on Renzi. Are you guys getting the same?

Note -- this doesn't necessarily mean anything.10/23/2006 01:05:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|I always wait until I know-- i.e. something is in the news or I otherwise have personal knowlege before I comment on it. This means I won't ever get a 'scoop.' So what? Despite a few well publicized scoops by bloggers, more often bloggers jump the gun and get embarrassed when what they are speculating on doesn't pan out (think Leonard what was his name at truthout.org)

I posted on the New Times story because there was a media link but despite all the good stuff I do get to post on Renzi (i.e. how to use google to prove his last ad is a lie) I have no information that this one has been verified yet, and until I do, I won't post it.

As for Charlton, I have respect for the guy (whether he was a Bush appointee or not). I think the criminal justice system works at its own pace and it is no more true that he is sitting on an indictment than the ridiculous charges made by the right are that somehow Democrats got the FBI to raid Curt Weldon's daughter's house last week.10/23/2006 09:41:00 PM|W|P| Chris|W|P|FYI--there is no speedy trial issue here. First of all, the right to a speedy trial is held by the Defendant (who can and usually does waive that right; time is often on the Defendant's side).

Second, there is no Defendant until there is an indictment. Speedy trial rights do no attach until an indictment is handed down.10/22/2006 08:28:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|How have I avoided writing about the Senate race? I somehow managed to not only miss last Wednesday's debate between all three candidates, but I missed today's KUAZ rebroadcast. If this keeps up, I may need to turn in my political junkie license. A couple of things have been striking me. Jim Pederson has been running a couple of ads promoting his pro-choice stance. This morning's Star has a bit on some NARAL mailers going out against Jon Kyl and Randy Graf. The Star points to a couple of times that Kyl voted for bills that included a rape and incest exemption. This doesn't necessarily mean that Kyl was for the exemptions, but just that they were the bills that were available to vote on. Back when Pederson was running the ads portraying the woman in jail, I heard griping from some Republicans that the ad was a "distortion." I'm not sure how. If one believes that abortion is murder and should be prosecuted as such, wouldn't that include the woman too? She's a co-conspirator, right? Now, Kyl is running these ads accusing Pederson of perjury on some statements to the IRS. I have to admit that I am not a businessman so I don't know exactly what happened. But geez, if what Kyl is saying is true, wouldn't Pederson be in jail right now? I have a strong feeling that Kyl is playing fast and loose with the facts here. I know, a Republican in this year exagerating so they can get re-elected, big shock. Anyone remember a while back when there was a buzz about the "Vote Vets" ad that was supposedly going to run in Arizona? What ever happened with that?|W|P|116157831628801791|W|P|Because I Haven't Written About the Senate Race in Way Too Long|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/22/2006 10:35:00 PM|W|P| Zelph|W|P|Not sure what became of the Vote Vets ad. It was a great ad.

Meanwhile let's Google Bomb the midterms!10/22/2006 09:07:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Last week, Linda Lopez led a group of three members in a sort of coup d'etat on the Sunnyside School District board and removed District superintendent Raúl Bejarano and board president Eva Carrillo-Dong. The board had to relent and reinstate Bejarano after public objection. The most silly part of the Bejarano move was that his contract was up in a few months anyhow. Lopez is now the president of the board. So, one might ask, can she be president of the school board and still make her run at being house Democratic leader? (against, by the way, the similarly-but-Portugese-named Phil Lopes) Some might be suprised to learn that there is nothing illegal about serving in two elected offices, as long as one of them doesn't actually pay. Many members of the legislature serve on school boards, and when he was Secretary of State, Dick Mahoney served on the Central Arizona Water Conservation District board (the less said about him the better). What many of us were wondering is whether someone could be a school board president and have a serious leadership role at the legislature and do both jobs well. Geography works against Lopez somewhat, since the two bodies meet a good 120 miles away from each other. Also, this fight could have resulted in a distraction from legislative duties, there were people talking about recalling her and her main ally on the board Luís Araiza over the handling of Bejarano. She seems to have solved this little problem, since she submitted a letter in the last day or so resigning her School board office effective December 31. Presumably, so she can pursue her goal of being House Democratic Leader.|W|P|116153471056265090|W|P|What Is Linda Lopez Up To?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/23/2006 10:16:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Hey, don't you have, I dunno, some motorized bicycle nonsense to work on or something?10/21/2006 05:09:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|When I tried to debunk the rumor that the DCCC was pulling out of the CD 5 race, I was asked for more solid evidence. I can't remember people asking for evidence from the people that started this rumor, but que sera sera. This is a new ad that the DCCC is running against J. D. Hayworth. Obviously, they haven't abandoned Harry Mitchell. |W|P|116143284426020703|W|P|You Wanted Evidence?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/23/2006 06:43:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Dude, you are kidding, right?10/20/2006 06:06:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I'm finding out a few more fascinating facts about J. D. Hayworth's latest publicity fiasco. Apparently, although Hayworth had been telling the press that he was planning to visit Scottsdale's Temple Beth Israel, he had privately told some near him that he wasn't planning on going. He had lined up his two surrogates, the ones that spoke so well on his behalf, some time ago. This is too bad, really. I'm not sure what he was so worried about, if he had stood up in front of the congregation and said, "You know, I didn't know enough about Henry Ford's history and how hurtful it was to your community. I'm sorry." I think he would have found them quite forgiving. Something about being in a house of worship does that to people. Heck, this even did wonders for George Wallace, and Hayworth didn't even do anything half as bad as Wallace did. Instead, he played this weasely game. He wanted to look like he was asking for forgiveness, while all along looking to bail. Is he that afraid to admit that he made a mistake? If he had appologized back when this thing broke, this story would just be the whinings and rantings of people like me. Now, his stubborness just seems to be dragging this whole thing out. Somebody was eager to point out to me that the two speakers, Jonathan and Irit Tratt, are Jewish. Well, I didn't think that Hayworth's campaign would send a couple of Methodists in to talk to a Jewish congregation. Although, sending these two folks didn't seem to be the brightest idea either. The audience found their statements insulting no matter what their faith was, and any chance that Hayworth had for anything resembling reconcilliation was out the window. To make things even more fun, it turns out that Jonathan Tratt was indicted back in 2000 for a bookmaking operation run out of a Scottsdale deli. J. D. knows how to pick 'em.|W|P|116135161847991344|W|P|Hayworth Synagogue Follow-Up|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/20/2006 08:58:00 AM|W|P| Jane Arizona|W|P|Jonathan Tratt was indicted back in 2000 for a bookmaking operation run out of a Scottsdale deli.

Devil's advocate: do we know for sure that this is the same guy?

I almost had a pretty good scoop on the dark criminal past of Don Chilton until the Paine camp told me that no, that's a different guy...10/20/2006 03:55:00 PM|W|P| Craig|W|P|I wondered about that too.

It seems right - the ages and locales match up, but I'm not sure it's the same Jonathan Tratt. At least not sure enough to go with it.

Doesn't matter though, what the guy on the state did was bad enough without the bookmaking indictment.

No need to pile on after the whistle has blown. :)10/19/2006 04:40:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Back on the sixth, Blog for Arizona threw in this little tidbit in a piece on a Zogby poll that later turned out to be a bit of an outlier:

If this trend holds up in multiple polls, this might be a tightening of the race, though representing mostly a drop-off from Gabby [Giffords] to undecideds, rather than any meaningful gain for [Randy] Graf. I've heard rumors of a as-yet-unreleased poll from UofA's KUAT showing the gap between Graf and Giffords as narrow as 6%, which would confirm a trend, but I haven't got solid sourcing on that as yet and am looking into it.

At least when that was put up, it was put up as a rumor. But, this morning, Arizona 8th not only put up the rumor as Gospel, but further asserted that KUAT is also supressing the results of a second poll and fired a producer for leaking the results. So, I called the Arch-Duke of KUAT's award winning news operation, Bill Buckmaster. Buckmaster told me that there is no poll and no producer has been fired. KUAT has not hired a pollster and does not have an in-house polling operation. From the beginning, the CD 8 race has been rife with rumors like this one based on a rather faulty premise: that a media organization would spend 'round about $10,000 on a poll, then not use it. It is especially silly here, since the claim is that a local public television station would waste money on two polls that they don't make public. Heck, they are so tight that I couldn't even keep my snazzy KUAT coffee mug after my appearance on their flagship news program. I found it funny that the rumor was that Graf was only six points behind. If you remember, local Republican bloggers were gushing about another "secret" media poll a while back that showed that Ron Drake was six points behind Raúl Grijalva. What is so magical about six? It was claimed that that poll had been commissioned by the Tucson Citizen, who were of course, supressing it. Actually, it really depended on who you talked to. I think it was claimed that every media outlet in Southern Arizona except for maybe 110° and Soda Pop had commissioned the poll and burried it. As it turns out, the poll was an internal campaign poll conducted by a firm that has in the past done work for the Citizen, but not commissioned by them. The "down by 6%" was only after recipients heard a list of negatives about Grijalva, and a series of positive statements about Drake. So, in other words, the poll said that if everyone hears Drake's message, he still loses by six points. Not exactly something to brag about. Of course, these little fables are being told to give these candidates the illusion of momentum. Well, that's all they've got right now, I guess.|W|P|116130561958323727|W|P|Another Moronic CD8 Rumor Disembowled: A Public Service I Provide Free of Charge|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/19/2006 08:08:00 PM|W|P| Framer|W|P|1. We didn't go with the KUAT poll rumor until we heard it from a number of sources. Generally these sources have been good and they are not related. If they are wrong, they are wrong, but it would have had to have been more than someone whispering it once into our ear for us to print it as the rumor has been out a number of weeks without us printing it.

2. No one EVER claimed that the Drake poll was done by a news organization. It was done by Margeret Kenski for the Drake Campaign. My personal belief was that the poll was flawed. I guessed that the name recognition for each candidate was low enough to make the contest pretty close. That would explain why the Drake campaign would have released the separation, but not the actual percentages. I wasn't aware that Kenski did push polling, but if she did, that would explain the numbers as well. Didn't spend much time on this, it wasn't my territory.

The only polls not being relased other than the KUAT poll were private organization polls which are generally not released as a rule.

3. Kenski poll 17%, Star Poll 12%, previous Star poll 10%, Zogby poll 8%, only the previous Star Poll and the Zogby Poll give their methodology. If I were looking at outliers, I wouldn't peg the Zogby poll as the outlier, but that is just me.

4. Good Hell you people have sure become thin-skinned. Should the Republicans retain the house every one of you look to go spittle-flecked Oberman on us. Tucson will get by for two years whether it is Gabby or Randy. Didn't see a tremendous amount of crying from the Republican side back when the state party was accusing Republicans of cutting their power and phone lines.

I look forward to the day that fragmentation occurs to the point where accurate polling is no longer possible, if we are not there already. It will certainly help political discussion and campaigning on ideas.

Thanks for the platform.10/19/2006 08:56:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|666 Ted! Think about it, totally a sign that Republicans are all satanists!

*laughs*

Just probably a coincidence about the double sixes.10/19/2006 12:46:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Mayor Bob Walkup filed papers last week to run for a third term. It suprised me, but that may be because I have been paying attention to the other races and my Revs are in the MLS playoffs. It suprised me because Walkup is now part of a minority on the council: he's the only Republican and his only regular ally is independent Carol West. I don't know why he would want to run again unless he forsees a Republican sweep in next year's election, or a series of pro-buisiness Democrat wins in the primaries. Had Walkup decided not to run, the Republicans would have been hard pressed to find a candidate with his vote getting ability in this mostly Democratic city. The Democratic names that have been mentioned as candidates are Councilmembers José Ibarra and Steve Leal, along with former Vice-Mayor Brent Davis. Davis, who represented the Northeast Side Ward 2 until 1987, has remained active in civic affairs. It seems, however, that his candidacy was premised on Walkup not running. No fair doing this while I wasn't looking, though.|W|P|116128832570768311|W|P|Walkup to Run for a Third Term|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/19/2006 02:13:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|No...that would be Art Jacobsen.10/19/2006 05:17:00 PM|W|P| Liza|W|P|Randall,
I totally agree with you about Steve Leal. He is articulate, accessible, and he knows his stuff. He would be an excellent mayor.

As for Weiss, does anyone really think she would settle for mayor of Tucson when she had her sights set on the House of Representatives? For one thing, the issues are completely different. If your goal is to affect foreign policy and national health care, then why would you try to get there via municipal government?

Of course, there is Pete Wilson who was a California state assemblyman, then mayor of San Diego, then a US Senator, then governor of California (and Republican all the way.) I always thought that his rise from mayor to US senator was meteoric even though he had been mayor for over 10 years. He was a good mayor, as I recall.

Well, who knows? I guess that one just never thinks of being mayor of Tucson as any kind of stepping stone.10/19/2006 11:13:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A chant from some of the Drake supporters last night:

Vote for the American name

So, what exactly are y'all saying there? Funny thing, an early appearance of the name "Grijalva" in our little part of the Americas was way back in 1775, when a guy named Juan Pablo de Grijalva was part of the Juan Bautista de Anza expedition that travelled from Mexico, helped settle Tubac and Tucson and eventually made it all the way up to San Francisco. I can't imagine there were too many "Drakes" out here back then, 'cept maybe for the ones that were waddling on the banks of the then-flowing Santa Cruz river. (Far as I know, Raúl Grijalva wasn't related to this guy, but I had one and possibly two Spanish surnamed ancestors that made the trip.) I certainly hope that these people were not trying to suggest that people with Spanish surnames are not qualified to be "American." If they do, I suggest a quick perusal of this website. Where does this stop, exactly? If we don't allow Spanish names, what about those of other romance languages, say, Italian or French? Why stop there? Have you looked at my crazy Polish last name lately (A worse tongue twister for most than "Grijalva")? I suppose we should only elect folks of good Anglo-Saxon stock. NB - I saw one Drake supporter leaving the debate with a rosary in his hand. I guess he anticipated that Drake's performance was going to be so bad that he needed intercession from the BVM (it didn't work). This particular supporter was obviously Catholic, which leads me to believe that he probably is not one with an English last name. Did he see the irony in this?|W|P|116128271449009192|W|P|And They Wonder Why Hispanics Aren't Falling Over Themselves to Vote for Them|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/19/2006 10:50:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A story in yesterday's Star about the controversey in the Sunnyside School District over the botched removal of Raúl Bejarano as Superintendent and the coup d'etat against Eva Carillo-Dong as Board President illicited the following reasoned, rational, level headed example of the vox populi:

Now Kathy Dong (who is not an elected board member) is wrecking havoc on the board as revenge for Mama's dismissal as President. BTW, is 'Dong' a North Korean name? (North Korea was testing Taepo-Dong missiles recently) This is not NORTH KOREA. We live in a democracy. If you don't agree with how an elected official is acting...you vote he or she out of office! That is exactly what Dong's fellow board members did and you should not act in retaliation against democracy.

Nice. The e-mail also accuses Eva Dong of being connected with people who slaughter goats. I don't get it either. I suppose if this was the fifteenth or twentieth comment, I could see that a discussion could degenerate into this sort of ugliness. But, this was the very first comment. I've seen this sort of thing with many of the on-line comments on Star stories. What is it about the comment section that seems to bring out the racists?|W|P|116128107858081642|W|P|The Star's Comment Section Brings Out the Best in Everyone, Doesn't it?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/19/2006 12:50:00 PM|W|P| GPO|W|P|I'll bet the guy thinks North Korean is a language.10/19/2006 10:27:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| The Tucson Citizen endorsed Raúl Grijalva today. The editors sum it up nicely in their opening sentence:

Pick almost any major national issue - illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, the No Child Left Behind Act - and Raúl Grijalva is ready to challenge the status quo.

Of course, the online version of the editorial is immediately followed by the de riguer racist response.|W|P|116127946141118936|W|P|I Don't Know, It May Have Helped Drake a Wee Bit if He Showed Up to the Editorial Board|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/19/2006 11:05:00 AM|W|P| Marco Alatorre|W|P|Yes, especially on the issue of gun control, Raúl Grijalva is ready to challenge the status quo.

Raul Grijalva has never seen a gun control bill he doesn't like.

He will stand with Schumer, Kennedy, Clinton, Feinstein, et al and support all efforts to undermine the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, in Grijalva's case, being ready to challenge the status quo doesn't equate with being ready to defend our constitutional rights.10/19/2006 11:10:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Funny thing, last night, Libertarian candidate Joe Cobb praised him for standing against the patriot act and against Bush's evisceration of habeas corpus. Of course, if your copy of the constitution only includes the second ammendment, then you wouldn't appreciate that.10/19/2006 12:14:00 PM|W|P| Marco Alatorre|W|P|Tedski,

You don't make sense. You suggest that it is OK for Grijalva to oppose one part of the Constitution (the Swecond Amendment) as long as he supports some other parts.

Great! You give Grijalva a pass to choose which parts of the Constitution he supports.

The fact is that Raul Grijalva opposes the citizens' right to choose to own firearms to defend themselves.

You are worried about habeus corpus rights but you ignore Grijalva's opposition to every citizen's right to self defense?

You really do not make sense!10/19/2006 06:12:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|It's a leap of logic from "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" to "citizens' right to choose to own firearms to defend themselves". I'm certainly no legal scholar, but I believe precedent backs me up when I say these are two distinct, though related, concepts. Like so much of Constitutional law, this particular amendment is open to plenty of interpretation.10/24/2006 12:10:00 AM|W|P| Marco Alatorre|W|P|Really?

How much can you interpret the statement: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed?

There is a right to keep and bear arms set forth in the Second Amendment.

You are not required to keep and bear arms, that is your choice.

You have the right to choose to keep and bear arms. There is no interpretation here.10/19/2006 07:03:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was going to try to not write anything this morning. But, darnit, that J. D. Hayworth, he just won't stop! Okay, here is the precis for those of you who have spent your last few weeks checking out bad commercials on YouTube. Hayworth was brought up for ctiticism for quoting from an anti-Semetic rant from Henry Ford in his book What It Takes. Later, Hayworth cut ties with Russell Pearce, who managed to find an even more despicable piece to quote from in an e-mail to supporters. Hayworth's quoting Ford caused some bleeding; the imbroglio even made the national Jewish media. The Pearce "double-plus suspension" was clearly done to undo the damage from this, since Hayworth's press release on the matter only addressed the anti-Semitism in the article that Pearce quoted from (published at the neo-Nazi site Storm Front), but not the shots taken at blacks and gays. Hayworth was scheduled to speak at Temple Beth Israel in Scottsdale, but bailed. It may have been a good chance to explain himself, but no. He failed to show up, instead he sent some supporters. This would have been only disappointing to the audience, except Jonathan Tratt, one of the people sent to speak on his behalf, made the ridiculous statement that Hayworth, a Baptist, "is a more observant Jew" than those in the audience. Um, yeah. How can someone say that and not realize it's offensive? Especially when you are saying it in a synagogue? Many audience members walked out at that point. This prompted another Hayworth supporter, Ira Tratt, to say from the bimah, "No wonder there are anti-semites." Great. You'd think that after the Ford flap, Hayworth, who may be a pompous, bloviating, bullying idiot but not an anti-semite, would treat the Jewish community with a bit more sensitivity. To loosely paraphrase Tratt, no wonder why Hayworth will lose.|W|P|116126836011790005|W|P|Maybe He Thinks He Is Because He Votes to Cut Pork|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/19/2006 05:03:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Hayworth is a Baptist? He showed up during a speech by James E. Faust (second counselor in the first Presidency of the LDS church) when the broke the ground for the LDS temple in Snowflake in July of 1999 or maybe it was 2000 (that was when he still represented the area up here) and managed to get recognized and had most of the crowd thinking he was LDS.

That J.D., he's such a kidder, isn't he?10/19/2006 05:04:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|kralmajales:

Well, start with the fact that the people in their districts voted for them. So maybe those people are on to something.10/20/2006 09:31:00 AM|W|P| The other one|W|P|Can you point to some printed or other MSM report of this incident in the Beth Israel temple? I'm not a doubter, but wonder if it is getting coverage in Arizona.10/18/2006 09:32:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This blogger attended the CD 7 candidate forum. This blogger's observations follow. Raúl Grijalva did well. Yes, I am horribly biased. He did the job that is called for of an incumbent: he presented his positions and record. I don't think he scored a "knockout" punch, but he really didn't have to. Actually, I must also say that Libertarian Joseph Cobb did a great job of presenting his positions, and he also did so with humor. Of course, my job is to pound on the Republican. Ron Drake did plenty to help me in that department. First of all, Drake's opening statement repeated his tired claim that somehow Grijalva is responsible for high drop-out rates in the CD 7. I'm not sure exactly how a congressman is responsible for this. Drake had a little bit of a chance to elaborate on his answer since an early question was on the topic. Except he didn't really answer the question. The question was about high school drop-out rates, and Drake instead talked about Pell Grants. Interestingly, he neglected to address what his party has been doing in congress with them. Recent cuts, for example, have rendered 90,000 students ineligible for the grants. Nope, not congress's fault. Apparently, according to him, the problem is students fraudulently spending Pell Grant money. Oddly for a Republican, he suggested that the IRS should get involved in investigating students for this sort of fraud. That's right folks, a Republican was suggesting expanding the IRS's power. And they wonder why their base is unexcited. On another education question, Drake suggested more money for vocational education for non-college bound students. He praised Pima County's Prop. 400 that will help smaller communities develop such programs. I have to give him some props for understanding the importance of that issue. I just wish he would talk to his fellow Republicans in the legislature so they will quit cutting such programs. Drake also had an allegation that he just made up. In one swoop, he blamed Grijalva for wanting to close the Brush-Wellman Plant and a plannned refinery near Yuma. Drake talked about the beryllium leaking from the plant like its safe to put the stuff in your morning coffee. Interestingly, Eva Dong, who until recently was the board president of the Sunnyside School District (more about why she ain't anymore in another post), was in the audience. She had had to deal with the issue close up, since a school was contaminated. She wasn't pleased with Drake's answer. As far as the refinery issue goes, Grijalva has had nothing to do with the fact that the refinery isn't up and running. The group who is backing the refinery has been unable to find financing. Grijalva tersely noted that he is not responsible to find financing for a private enterprise. Drake then claimed that some non-existent vote blocked the refinery. Nice try. Drake also claimed that Grijalva was for "open borders." Despite the fact that Grijalva said he was a supporter of the McCain-Kennedy bill, Drake stated that "it doesn't say that on your website." Well, I checked the website, and I found numerous examples, such as this one, of Grijalva's support for McCain-Kennedy. I couldn't find any endorsement of an "open borders" bill, and I doubt that such a creature exists. There were two other things that really bugged me about Drake though. There was a sort of "you people" attitude in a couple of his statements. One reporter I spoke to even told me that he had used that very phrase before when speaking about Tucsonans. Word of advice to candidates from the Valley: I know you guys think we all live in Podunk and our names are Ma and Pa Kettle, but when you campaign down here, pretend you actually respect us. "You people in Tucson have had poor leadership in this district for 30 years." Interesting, because technically the district was only created in 2002. But, let's say we ignore that. For most of that 30 years, Mo Udall was representing the area. Yeah, we don't know how to pick good leaders. Please, Maricopans, save us from ourselves. One panelist asked one of those questions that I hate in debates: he asked the candidates to give the strengths of their oponents. Cobb and Grijalva gave gracious answers, the way politicians do in these situations. Drake's response?

Cobb is from Avondale. Grijalva is an incumbent.

Way to be classy there, fella.|W|P|116123618841496117|W|P|Mallard to Students: Stop Stealing Pell Grant Money!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/18/2006 10:36:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Check out this article, in which Rick Santorum compares our soldiers to...um...hobbits. So then, who's Gollum?|W|P|116119324329405078|W|P|I Guess I Should Be Thankful That He Reads|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/18/2006 07:01:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Last week, I wrote about Bill Phillips's mailer. It's been sitting on my desk ever since, and one sentence has been striking me:

Republicans comprise a substantial minority in our District, yet we have not had representation for some time.

Hmm. You know, years ago, I met with some Green Party leaders. They wanted to see if there was some way to push for alternative election systems, particularly proportional representation. They seem to have since abandoned the effort for proportional representation, but local Green Party matron Claudia Ellquist has been putting her efforts to instant run-off voting. It's sounding to me like Phillips is endorsing proportional representation (unless he is only angry about Republicans being "unrepresented" in Democratic districts). Maybe he can get together with Ellquist and revive her effort for European style democracy in Arizona. Let's do it!|W|P|116118126182726630|W|P|Bill Phillips (Hearts) Lani Guinier?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/18/2006 08:24:00 AM|W|P| Michael|W|P|Boy, talk about strange bedfellows. I think Claudia would eat Phillips for breakfast.10/18/2006 04:41:00 PM|W|P| Rex Scott|W|P|Ted-

While it is off the topic of Phillips, I wanted to send along this link to a letter I penned for tomorrow's Northwest Explorer regarding two of the GOP's candidates in LD26:

http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2006/10/18/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/letters03.txt

The stakes up here COULD NOT BE HIGHER!

I sincerely hope that Democrats across Pima County will help Lena Saradnik and Charlene Pesquiera in any way they can!10/18/2006 04:43:00 PM|W|P| Rex Scott|W|P|The link I pasted above did not copy completely. Let's try this smaller one:

http://www.explorernews.com/opinion/

Once you get to this page, the letter is titled "Extreme Opinions."10/17/2006 09:35:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In tonight's debate, Joe Burchell asked Randy Graf if he would follow the example of J. D. Hayworth and distance himself from Russell Pearce. For those of you who have been too busy reading my anti-DC United rants or comments on local bands on my other blog, Pearce has been hammered as of late for his use of the term "wetback" and for sending out an e-mail quoting a neo-Nazi article. Graf's reply:

Russell Pearce is a good American patriot. We are of a like mind. I am proud of his endorsement.

I don't only have a problem with this because he is standing by Pearce despite what we are all finding out about him, but also because Graf is trying to have it both ways. When the heat was on Pearce most heavily last week, Pearce's name disappeared from his endorsement list. It has since re-appeared. He also quietly shelved his ad featuring Pearce and Karen Johnson. The link to the commercial disappeared. (It can still be found here.) So, last week he distanced himself from Pearce hoping no one would notice, now they are best pals again. Is that principle or politics? I can't tell.|W|P|116114758834111054|W|P|Randy (Hearts) Rusty|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/17/2006 11:13:00 PM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|PK,

Head here if you want more on the debate.

It's also on TV so you can see it yourself.

Won't speak for Tedski, but I would speculate he is following up on his earlier content regarding the Pierce/Graf pal thing, not reporting on the debate.10/18/2006 01:29:00 PM|W|P| Jane Arizona|W|P|Where'd Rusty's website go??10/17/2006 11:27:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Radar is featuring a list of the ten dumbest congressmen. Guess who is listed as number four? I'll give you a hint: his intitals are "J" and "D."|W|P|116111000140867340|W|P|There's a Top 10 List That One Republican Won't be Bragging About|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/17/2006 06:07:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Democrats feel that they have a chance to take Jim Weiers out with Democrat Jackie Thrasher. It's admitedly a long shot, but it can be done. Wow, a chance to take out a prominent Republican who has let the far right pass what ever the heck they want, regardless of constitutionality, practicality or sanity. All of us Democrats would be on board for that one, right? Wrong. Weiers has a piece going out listing Democratic elected officials who are endorsing him. One of the people listed is Art Hamilton. I already voiced my consternation about that one. Another is Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon. I keep hearing that Gordon wants to run for higher office at some point. He does want to run as a Democrat, right? Maybe it would help if he actually endorsed a Democrat in a contested race, right? Okay, he endorsed Harry Mitchell. The fact that many of us were suprised by that tells you the problem. (Gordon's reason on the piece: "He lives in Phoenix." Hmm, doesn't Mike Tyson live in Phoenix these days? Maybe we should elect him State Treasurer. Danny Bonaduce lived there for a while, maybe we can get him to come back and run for Secretary of State?) Leah Landrum-Taylor is also listed as an endorser. She's moving on to the State Senate this year, so I guess she feels like she won't have to deal with the guy. She's seen the way that Democratic bills and members get dealt with close up, but she still is endorsing him. I'm sure that if he wins with Democratic support, he'll deal with Democratic members fairly and allow Democratic bills to be heard, right? I don't know if the endorsements of Gordon and Landrum-Taylor are tied into the same fit of pique that Hamilton has against the AEA. After a few weeks of controversies, people have been asking Weiers to remove Russell Pearce from his position as a committee chairman. Weiers has refused to take any action despite the fact that this guy's statements on race have become an embarassment to his caucus and the state. Why should he take any action? The right loves Pearce, and Weiers knows that he will always be able to find a couple of Democrats who will support him no matter what he does.|W|P|116109257113428054|W|P|Thanks for All the Help|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/16/2006 05:53:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The liberals are on the run! They know that the vast majority of Arizonans, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary (all polls that show people don't share my views are obviously deeply flawed), don't agree with their radical leftist vision for Arizona! The DCCC is spending not one dime on the races of Raúl Grijalva and Ed Pastor. That's right. They know that these two will lose and lose HUGE. The voters, the true American voters, appreciate the work of Repulican leadership in congress, and know that if Denny Hastert only had two more votes in his conference, he would have this Mark Foley thing wrapped up and we'd win the war in Iraq in a month. And look, is the DGA spending any money on Janet Napolitano's race? No! And my sources in the Governor's campaign (I've got so many, despite only talking to other Republican activists) tell me that they are already packing up for a sure Len Munsil victory. The voters, the true American voters, know that that veto pen is preventing popular leaders like Russell Pearce from running the state the way that he knows it needs to be run. And look, no national money to help Victor Soltero or Steve Gallardo. Why? Because they are sure losers. The leftist horror show that has been running our state for decades is going to end! We are going to party like it's 1899!|W|P|116100464239399351|W|P|This Is Me Chanelling Conservative Bloggers|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/16/2006 12:46:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Scarily funny! I'm thinking colonies... witch hunting... the dark ages upon us again, lit up only by our Blackberries!10/16/2006 05:15:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Well, doncha know? It's only gerrymandering why there are any Democrats in the legislature at all! If they could draw a map that let them, for example, include Democratic precincts in Tucson with a slightly larger number of Republican precincts in Scottsdale, or include Democratic precincts on the Navajo reservation with Republican precincts in Mesa, why then they could elect a 100% GOP legislature that would send Gov. Munsil everything he asked for.

Just think-- a border wall along the whole border, a Christian prayer in every classroom before the daily lecture on creationism, taught by all volunteer teachers. There would be no need to fund police, except border police, because it would be mandatory that everyone over the age of three had to carry a loaded weapon. Anyone guilty of any kind of sexual sin subject to public flogging, the death penalty for any other crime, and no tax at all (except to pay legislators). AZ the first state in the country to spend their block grants for welfare exclusively for corporate welfare, and no enforcement of any environmental or labor regulations. End public financing so that instead anyone who can raise enough money from the oil or the pharmaceutical companies can buy a seat in the legislature.

Heck, make the Libertarians to look like the big spending liberals that they are.10/16/2006 06:50:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I was feeling queasy from my spinach pasta and that just made it worse Eli.10/16/2006 05:43:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Jim Pederson - Jon Kyl debate is on again for Wednesday. Apparently, it will be at 6:30 on KUAT, but some details are still being worked out. From what I heard, Libertarian candidate Richard Mack will be there. Of course, this all could have changed since I last talked to anyone about it. It could change by the time you read this. I'm still curious about why Kyl is so worried about doing a debate in the first place. I mean, he's been there for twelve years and he has a great record to stand on, right?|W|P|116100297448712688|W|P|Pederson and Kyl Debate On Again, For Now|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/16/2006 06:46:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I think he is worried because then he might not get to eat those freedom fries in the Capital cafeteria.

Wait, not that is JD...Then I have no idea what he is worried about.10/14/2006 07:04:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I talked to a friend of mine in DC that regularly meets with movers in the DCCC and other Democratic affiliated groups that target congressional races. He was very excited about Ellen Simon, and I said, well, good, since the D-Trip seems to have abandoned Harry Mitchell. "What? What are you talking about?" I told him that I had read on some conservative blogs about the DCCC pulling out of Mitchell's race. He said that no such thing has happened, that DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel visited the district just this week. Apparently, this rumor started when the existing ad buy had to be rescheduled to start earlier. This meant that some later ads were cancelled. The D-Trip is still planning on unloading $1.7 million on this race, and their polling still shows Mitchell even or sligtly ahead of J. D. Hayworth. The conservative bloggers can keep wishing though.|W|P|116088029074379052|W|P|Um, Not Quite|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/17/2006 07:02:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|I don't recall anyone asking the Republican bloggers for confirmation, but here it goes.

There is a listing on Mitchell's site of fundraising events. You will see that an event is listed with Emanuel for October 10th.10/14/2006 06:54:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In an odd turn given everything else that is going on, former Massachusetts Rep. Gerry Studds has died from a blood clot in his lung. Studds is probably most famous for being the first openly gay congressman. Studds's name has recently been in the news because of the ongoing Mark Foley scandal. Unfortunately, this has obscured his tremendous work on behalf of protecting Northeastern fisheries as well as broader environmental issues.|W|P|116087780179740699|W|P|Gerry Studds|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/18/2006 11:09:00 AM|W|P| Thank Hieu|W|P|You forgot to mention why his name has popped up due to the Foley scandal.10/14/2006 02:21:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Raúl Grijalva and Ron Drake will be debating on three occasions over the next couple of weeks: Monday, October 16 AZ Daily Star Debate ACCESS Tucson 124 E. Broadway 6pm Wednesday, October 18 U of A Debate Student Union KIVA room 7pm Monday, October 23 Council of Senior Citizen Organizations Robinsons May Depatment Store at El Con Mall 3rd Floor 1pm|W|P|116086165717468238|W|P|Why Won't My Opponent Debate Me? What? He Is? Oh, Never Mind.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/13/2006 06:40:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| The sound you hear is prominent Republicans running from their one time best pal, Russell Pearce. Well, another man running from Pearce is our own Randy Graf. Graf actually had an ad in the can featuring an endorsement from Pearce. Well, any link to the ad has disappeared from the site, but it can still be found here. Also, you can find the ad on YouTube here. Pearce's name has been removed from Graf's supporter list as well. Pearce and Graf have been working hand in glove on immigration issues for years. Now he's quietly disassociating himself from him in the hopes that no one notices. As I've said before, Pearce has been known to make inappropriate statements for some time now. Why Graf would want to feature this man's endorsement, even before the latest outrage, is beyond me. NB - Word is that some legislative leaders are pushing for Speaker Jim Weiers to remove Pearce from his chairmanship. More on this when I hear something interesting.|W|P|116079134393267596|W|P|Randy Graf and Russell Pearce|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/14/2006 01:57:00 AM|W|P| Michael|W|P|I was surprised (though I shouldn't have been in the least) when I saw Russell Pearce and Karen Johnson in that Graf ad. Does Randy really think those demagogues will help him in this moderate district? The conservative base that they appeal to can't be more than what? About 30% of registered voters in CD8? I guess he needs them motivated if he has any hope of winning, but it just seems like they could cause more harm than good for his campaign. Given Pearce's recent propensity for very publicly stepping in it, I'd say that's an even fairer assessment now.10/14/2006 07:34:00 PM|W|P| Zelph|W|P|Russell Pearce makes Karen Johnson look like the voice of reason. There is crazy and then there is complete batshit crazy.10/14/2006 07:59:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|Shades of insane?10/13/2006 05:32:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|When I was putting together my last post featuring my response to a complaint posted on Espresso Pundit, I remembered that Al Melvin puts "Captain" on his signs. His website, which prominently features a picture of him in uniform, has a list of veterans who have endorsed him with, you guessed it, rank and branch of service. I was getting ready to write a post saying "Hey, why aren't you guys raising a stink about that!" when one particular name caught my eye: Former Randy Graf campaign manager Steve Aiken. For those of you who need to be reminded, Aiken had to be removed as campaign manager a few months back when it turned out that he had previously been convicted of sexual impropriety with a teenage girl when he lived in Pennsylvania. This was enough for Graf to cut the ties, but apparently, this isn't a problem for Capt. Melvin. With everything that is going on, I think we ought to go back to Mr. Aiken and ask him about this incident again. He still has time to blame Jack Daniels and George Soros.|W|P|116078682299575448|W|P|Maybe After the Events of the Last Couple of Weeks, You May Want to Take That Down|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/14/2006 07:27:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Still an O6...I don't know what the heck I was thinking.

It's fixed.10/13/2006 05:24:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Anyone remember Sister Souljah? Didn't think any of you would. She was one of the hangers-on for Public Enemy back in the early 1990's. After one of her many controversial statements, someone told her that some of her statements made people nervous. She responded "Souljah is not here to make white men comfortable." In much the same way, I realize that Espresso Pundit is not here to make me happy. Yes, I just compared Greg Patterson to Sister Souljah. Who ever thought that would happen? But that is just the sort of thing that makes this blog entertaining. But, Patterson has said some things over the last few days that I find particularly infuriating. One was a letter that he reprinted from one of his readers. It contained the following allegation:

Pederson has the nerve to compare an expert on terrorism and national security to Osama bin Laden and then he runs off to raise money for Hamas on the weekend we commemorate the worst terrorist attack in our country's history.

Okay, when the heck did Jim Pederson "raise money for Hamas"? How is this not libelous? I know some ridiculous things get put in the comments on here, but they can be quickly responded to. Patterson got this e-mail, and chose to post it with little or no opportunity for someone to refute it. It may be silly and irrelevant to knock Pederson for his son or his wealth, but at least they have some basis, however tenuous, in fact. In essence, this e-mail accuses Pederson of treason. Is this the sort of thing we'll be treated to over the next couple of weeks? Nice. A less inflamatory e-mail went up over the last day or so, but once again, with an allegation that is none the less, shall we say, poorly documented:

Have you seen the latest Jim Pederson ad with what appears to be active duty military personnel criticizing John Kyle [sic] and President Bush’s handling of the war? It is not legal for active duty military personnel to be overtly involved in political campaigns, particularly when it involves criticizing their Commander-in-Chief . . . Which begs the question, are they active duty military personnel? Probably not, but this new misleading ad of the week has set a new standard. It leads the viewer to think that these men are active duty because they are shown in uniform with their name and rank.

Here is the ad in question. Two contradictory allegations are made here: that military personel are campaigning in uniform, or that Pederson is being deceptive by showing them at all. Notice that one sailor, Andrew Vera, is featured wearing dog tags but not a uniform, and soldier Tomás Chavez is wearing something similar to a uniform, but it has no insignia on it. These men are not in uniform. Their rank is given because they served. My father can still go by Master Sergeant if he chooses, even though he's been retired for 20 years. They can use that rank for life because they earned that right. The fact is, these guys served in theater and saw the results of the administration's mismanagement of the war. That is all that Pederson is showing by giving their rank. At least the tempest-in-a-teapot crusade against the 9-11 memorial was actually based some facts. One has to wonder if the writer's objection has more to do with the views expressed in the ad.|W|P|116074439495021832|W|P|Silly Allegations About Pederson|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/13/2006 08:11:00 AM|W|P| Daniel R. Patterson, Editor|W|P|Yo! Bum rush the show! I remember Sista Souljah. She has the intro on 'By the time I get to Arizona.'

Pederson is right, Kyl is a nutcase who hates America, freedom, and women.10/13/2006 09:41:00 AM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Yeah, the title of Ted's post is 'Silly Allegations About Pederson.' So, phx kid, I see you are happy to make one.

And at least the Hamas allegation was something new, that I hadn't heard before. But your silly allegation is the same stupid line I've been hearing for years, and it stays just as stupid every time I hear it.

I would also ask you this. I presume you are anti-abortion. So then, do you support sex education in schools, birth control and family planning, which have since the early 1990's been quietly responsible for a 25% decline in the number of abortions, even while conservatives were running around passing quixotic laws that wasted the states' money in court cases that tried to ban or restrict it?10/13/2006 04:58:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I know I am the last to put this up, but I wasn't sure how true it was. The website Majority Watch has posted a poll showing Ellen Simon ahead of Rick Renzi 50-46. They also posted some crosstabs. Unfortunately, the tabs's geographic breakdown seems a bit ham handed, with Graham and Greenlee Counties lumped in with Flagstaff and the Navajo nation. This makes it harder to see how she's doing in the more reliably Democratic areas compared to the Republican areas. But, I'll take it anyway. Who the heck saw this coming? Not my part of the state, so I have an excuse.|W|P|116074185172577820|W|P|Simon Ahead?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/12/2006 09:48:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|J. D. Hayworth in this morning's Republic:

Given the regrettable and disturbing nature of the e-mail Russell Pearce circulated earlier this week, I cannot in good conscience lend my endorsement to his candidacy for state Representative. While Russell has issued an apology for his e-mail, I nonetheless will not be associated with any communication that contains anti-Semitic remarks

Next time Russell, make sure you only quote anti-Semetic remarks from Henry Ford. That seems to be okay with Rep. Hayworth.|W|P|116067195286275615|W|P|Now He Tells Us|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/12/2006 08:37:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner is having a press conference today to announce that he is not running for president. His reason for not running...wait for it...family considerations. -yawn- I have no doubts that the guy was an able governor, but I always had the inkling that he was "prominently mentioned" mostly because he shared a media market with Washington journalists. With all due respect for the guy, I can't see how he would have lit fires among primary voters in the rest of the country.|W|P|116066819387730079|W|P|Never Too Early for '08: Mark Warner Out|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/12/2006 09:11:00 AM|W|P| Framer|W|P|The withdrawl of Warner is bad because he was the only potential Dem candidate that had a chance of winning even one state in the South. Hillary, Gore, Kerry, Vilsack, and the also rans aren't going to make a dent there.

I would guess that the real headline should be:

"Mark Warner accepts nod: Clinton-Warner ticket set for '08"

But I just play a pundit in the blogs.10/12/2006 01:22:00 PM|W|P| Framer|W|P|Not to be a conversation hog, but this is also a blow to John McCain as well. Both Rudy and Mitt Romney may have had a "Southern Problem" if matched up against Warner. The possible nomination of Warner was a huge plus to McCain for electability reasons.

However, for all of their possible softness in the South, both Rudy and Romney still will take every Southern state if matched up against any of the remaining plausible Democratic candidates.

Rudy also places a lot of New England States on the table and possibly California.

Romney has a great chance of turning some of the bluish Midwestern states, especially Michigan, and has a real good chance of turning New Hampshire.

Democrats better be for coming up with a way to stop Hillary from getting the nod, or Republicans are likely to get a landside with coattails.

It is also possible Warner is counting on this and is waiting for 2012 to avoid a bloody brawl with the Clinton Machine.10/12/2006 03:25:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Yeah, he may be playing the odds. He would be facing a crowded, tough field to win a Presidential nomination. On the other hand he left office with phenomenal approval ratings (and gained some more political capital in Virginia when he helped Tim Kaine succeed him) so he may be figuring that he has a lock on the Senate nomination if he wants it in 2008, and would be heavily favored to win it if John Warner retires, and would probably be a very strong challenger even if John Warner does try to win another term.10/12/2006 03:46:00 PM|W|P| Framer|W|P|I could vote for Rudy, although I believe you get the same dynamicism from Romney without the baggage.

I also like that Romney has an actual pedigree of cutting spending and balancing budgets in Massachussets of all places. Not many have seen him yet, but he will play big, epecially if Rudy falters.10/12/2006 04:53:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|I don't see Warner's dropping out as a loss at all. I was never convinced that a one-term Governor could be a viable candidate for national office. Wasn't it the first and only election he ever won? Not that winning elections for lower office should be a prerequisite for winning the Presidency, but it's a good indication you're capable. A national election is a lot different than a statewide race.

I'll also put my northeasterner bias right out there and say I'm fine with having one fewer southern candidate in the field. If the Democrats win control of the House this year, it'll be the first time the party in power has achieved that power without having a majority of southern seats. That's a pretty major statement about the waning importance of the Old Confederacy. There'll be no shed tears from this bleeding-heart liberal.10/13/2006 01:39:00 PM|W|P| Framer|W|P|Barring the death or serious scandal ivolving either Hillary, Gore, Kerry, and PERHAPS Edwards, Wes Clark has about as much chance of being the Democratic nominee for president as I do. I have probably already raised more money.

There just won't be enough oxygen and donors to move him along.

It almost makes me giggle that the serious alternative to Hillary Clinton will probably wind up being Al Gore.

Any of the above named individuals would be slaughtered by McCain, Rudy, or Romney one of which will be the eventual GOP nominee.

Unless you can pull a Bill Clinton AND a Ross Perot out of your hat. . .10/11/2006 04:09:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|J. D. Hayworth today recinded his endorsement of Russell Pearce due to his forwarding a racist article from a neo-nazi website to supporters. Observers believe that this is the beginning of a sort of "quarantine" of Pearce within the Republican party. To which I say, why only now? It is not like this guy has been attending B'nai Brith luncheons and singing "We Shall Overcome" at Martin Luther King Jr. Day rallies. This guy's flirtations with racism has been well known around West Washington for some time now. Despite his reputation and public statements, he has been given a great deal of power by his colleagues in the house. Sometimes, his fellow legislators would pepper their floor speeches with praise for him. The Speaker even made a special arrangement for Pearce. For years Pearce had been chairman of the appropriations committee. When complaints surfaced about Pearce's management of the committee, the Speaker gave Pearce his own seperate committee, Appropriations P. The "P," by the way, is for "Pearce." Instead of removing Pearce from a position of responsibility, they gave him his own committee and named it after him. I think this is called enabling. The excuse that one can hear from other Republicans is that Pearce is just too powerful. Well, where did he get that power from? His Republican colleagues. This guy is on the verge of becoming a national embarassment. Every legislature has one of these figures, but ours runs a committee and has a great deal of power over legislation. I'm not even asking why the moderates let this happen. I want to know why any concientious conservative let this happen. For all my problems with Joe Arpaio, he seems to be the only Republican official who was willing to fire Pearce before he let him become an embarassment.|W|P|116061003006482147|W|P|Russ Who? I Don't Know Any Russ. Why Ever Would You Ask?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/12/2006 04:54:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|...or Nichols or Farnsworth or Anderson or Knaperek or Quelland or...10/14/2006 01:23:00 PM|W|P| Zelph|W|P|Actually Gov. Jane Hull once fired Pearce as head of MVD. Do you remember why?10/11/2006 07:16:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Our man Russell Pearce is making the unlikely claim that he didn't know that an article entitled "Who Rules America? The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken" contained white supremacist statements. Hogwash. (I think I've read that word somewhere, who knows why it is in my head.) The article in question was originally published in a publication of the National Alliance. That may have been clue number one that the article may have been racist. This is like one claiming that one didn't know that an article in Hustler was sexually oriented. He claims that he did not read the whole article. Yeah, I usually forward articles from people that I didn't read. Well, I went ahead and read the original article. If Pearce had read only to the seventh paragraph, he would have found this:

For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a "take charge" Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist—that is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America—is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens. The White racist "gun nut," in fact, has become a familiar stereotype on TV shows.

Yeah, he had no idea that might contain "insensitive" statements. It gets worse from there for those of you willing to read the whole vile thing. Pearce claims that he didn't know the contents of the article and doesn't agree with them. I find this incredibly unlikely. The local media should pursue this. This isn't a matter of him just using the word "wetback," this is a matter of asking questions about who he is associating with and what motivates him politically. Unfortunately, the media and political establishment is too quick to laugh this sort of thing off as "well, that's Russ." This guy has an awful lot of power, and was even talked about as a candidate for higher office. It's high time some one asks some tough questions. Of course, he could just be a moron that is sending articles to people without reading them. So, he's either a bigot or an idiot. Which is it, Russ?|W|P|116057733919482256|W|P|Pearce: I'm Not a Racist, I Just Can't Read|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/11/2006 12:14:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I just find it funny that JD withdrew his endorsement of Pearce.10/11/2006 12:23:00 PM|W|P| eckeric|W|P|Phx Kid,

I think you are being a little bit lazy. The Jewish News of Greater Phoenix identifies CAIR as "an organization whose anti-Israel views are well known." This isn't the same as what you are saying. Pederson later told teh Jewish News:"Certainly if I had known CAIR is not considered a moderate organization I would not have attended the event," ... "My position on the situation in the Middle East is clear: U.S. support for Israel has to be unequivocal. There can never be any doubt about our commitment to Israel." And the article also notes that one of the co-owners of the Jewish News has made a donation to the Pederson campaign.

article


Meanwhile, you can't tell me that Mr. Perice doesn't know the word "miscegenation." If so, he really needs to read up on Loving vs Virginia:

Loving vs Virginia

"Section 20-59, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:

"Punishment for marriage.---If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."

Does he really want to associate himself with people who look back fondly to those days?10/11/2006 04:07:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|You got me Sandy. And everything that Mark Foley did was okay because of Gerry Studds.10/11/2006 07:03:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A recent e-mail "blast" from Randy Graf's campaign appealed for supporters to re-sign up after purported computer problems rendered a large portion of their volunteer database inaccessible. This would be an irritating problem that would be in house, except for one thing: Graf's problems were featured in the national tip-sheet Hotline:

Computer Crash and Burn: In AZ 08, ex-State Rep. Randy Graf's (R) camp asked his volunteers "to re-register with the" camp, as " computer problems" made "a large portion" of their volunteer database "inaccessible." In a newsletter, Graf's camp said it is "extremely apologetic for the inconvenience" and said "the problem has been corrected."

For all of the bluster that he doesn't need national support, he does need some. Hotline is read by national donors and the people that run PACs. This sort of publicity can't help.|W|P|116057582251664227|W|P|Oops!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/10/2006 06:31:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A mailer from Republican House candidate Bill Phillips hit the mailboxes of Republicans and NOPs this week:

Republicans comprise a substantial minority in our District, yet we have not had representation for some time. I believe there is a need for a different voice - a representative who appreciates limited government, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. In the past four years our two incumbents personally introduced 68 bills of which only 5 became law. We deserve better. Each District has two members in the State House of Representatives. I am the lone Republican in this race. We have a golden opportunity to elect a represenatative who will be more effective on issues important to our District. Since there are two open seats, you are allowed to vote for up to any two candidates. There is no requirement, however, to exercise both votes. Consider exercising only one of your two available votes - just for BILL PHILLIPS. This is likened to casting two votes for one candidate. Using the second vote would necessitate your voting for the other party. I ask for the privilege of being your State Representative.

Interesting that Phillips attacks Dave Bradley and Ted Downing for not passing gobs of bills. Given most of what has been passing the legislature, I would consider this a good thing. You'd expect him to then take the tack of, "Elect me, a Republican, so I can work with the Republican leadership." Instead, he takes the rather technical track of explaining the strategy of "single shoting." He even includes a helpful diagram to show how this is done. "Single shoting" is when a candidate for one reason or another asks that his or her supporters only use one of their two votes, so that the second vote will not help out one of the other candidates running. This can work very well in a partisan race where one candidate of the majority party is noticeably weaker than the other. This is a large part of how Jennifer Burns got elected in an otherwise decent Democratic year and also how Ted Poelstra was elected. Poelstra also had the advantage of a strong Green party candidate, Katie Bolger, who drew considerable numbers of Democratic votes. In this race, I wonder if this strategy will work. The last registration counts show a Democratic advantage of 43%-29%. With this sort of advantage, one of the two Democratic nominees would have to be considerably weaker than the other for Phillips to take advantage. If the primary results are to be believed, the two Democrats will probably capture both votes of most Democrats. The thing that is funny to me about this appeal is that it is pretty partisan. Why would you make a partisan appeal like this to independent voters? Independent voters are precisely the sort that don't like partisan messages. In addition, independents in Tucson tend to be left of center or even futher left than the Democratic party. It is difficult to believe that an appeal that says "let's mess with the Democrats by single shoting!" would find much support.|W|P|116053103155471180|W|P|Don't Waste Your Vote!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/10/2006 07:11:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The CD 7 and CD 8 candidates had their editorial board meetings with the Star yesterday. I was thinking of showing up with a tape recorder and standing in the middle of everything, then complain when people weren't nice to me. Instead, I'm going to rely on my vast network of spies. Ron Drake on several occasions channeled Mickey Thomas to say "I built a city." Never mind that the City of Avondale was built by Hispanics, we'll just buy into that pretense that none of Arizona existed until the Anglos showed up from the midwest and taught everyone the way to live. A member of the editorial board called Drake on his flip-flop on guest worker programs. In his previous visit to the editorial board, he voiced support for such programs. Yesterday, he was against such programs. Tommorrow, who knows? Randy Graf reportedly has no position on North Korea because it is "above his paygrade." That would be a nice argument, 'cept he's running to be a congressman. I suppose any problem that can't be blamed on immigrants is outside of his job description. We'll start a rumor that Kim Jong Il is hiring low wage workers from Nicaragua, then he'll have an opinion. To be fair, Graf did eventually have an answer that seemed to endorse a military solution. They have missles that can reach two of our allies...you think they'd be thrilled about an invasion? We would probably have better military options if our army wasn't bogged down in Iraq. He also endorsed bringing in the Russians, Chinese, South Koreans and Japanese in for talks. Wow, talks with six parties...hmm...too bad no one has thought of that. Well, my partisan opinion: Graf and Drake aren't ready for prime time, and Raúl Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords rock. Yeah team! Hey, I can do that once in a while. NB - Someone with a parapsychological bent will tell me that Drake cannot channel Thomas, because Thomas is still alive. Au contrare, Drake has some remarkable abilities. He can channel the spirits of people whose careers are dead.|W|P|116049144379939562|W|P|Yes, But Did Drake Build That City on Rock and Roll?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/10/2006 10:52:00 AM|W|P| Liza|W|P|Well, if God channels His neoconservative Republican plan for American hegemony through George Bush, then surely Ron Drake can channel Mickey Thomas. It's a gift that Republicans have, possibly related to their closeness to God.10/10/2006 02:35:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|You're joking, right? No one gives a crap what bands support who. For that matter, what candidates any celeb. supports. The Hollywood types are not the end-all-be-all of a campaign. Look at 04. Kerry-Rosie..FLOP! Kerry-Cher...FLOP! Kerry-Hollywood...FLOP! Kerry-Moore...FLOP!10/10/2006 02:50:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|That's scary that a guy who is running for Congress couldn't even figure out when first asked whether he should condemn the N. Koreans or not.

Sounds like an ignoramus, and if he went there he wouldn't be the first ignoramus in Congress.10/10/2006 06:09:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, we have another incident of conservative victimhood on the blogs. Over at Arizona Growler, a fellow named Garrett O'Hara claims to have been "assaulted" by a Raúl Grijalva staffer. He has a complete podcast of the incident over on his blog. The podcast includes bits of his interview with Grijalva, which sounded more like O'Hara trying to start an argument than anything else, plus a melodramatic audio verite recounting of the incident, done with all of the urgency of an Edward R. Murrow broadcast from a London rooftop during the blitz. I also listened to his pretentious and confrontational interviews with other democratic elected officials, and I can see why Grijalva's staff may have found him irritating. The incident occurred at a Rock the Vote event at Main Gate Square near the University of Arizona campus. O'Hara's podcast initially implies that he thought that ASUA would slant the event. Already, he starts with the victimhood. O'Hara asked Grijalva, as well as other elected officials, whether or not the Board of Regents should recind the decades long (extending back in one form or another to territorial days) ban on guns at the University of Arizona campus. This seems to be an odd issue for campus conservatives to hang their hats on, but que sera sera. Grijalva initially became angry because O'Hara interrupted his answer, and Grijalva didn't appreciate just being used for O'Hara to make his political point. Eventually, O'Hara gave Grijalva room to answer. It was later that the trouble ocurred. Grijalva was having a discussion with his opponent, Ron Drake, and O'Hara was hoping to play "gotcha" and find out why Grijalva won't debate. Funny thing, Grijalva actually will be debating Drake. Never let the facts get in the way of a snotty attack though. O'Hara nudged his way inbetween the two candidates, and attempted to record their conversation. This is when a member of Grijalva's staff objected. O'Hara claims that the conversation wasn't private because it was in a public place, but two people talking in a public place have some expectation for "personal space" and not have some guy record their conversation. This may not be a right recognized by the Constitution, but it is a matter of politeness and decorum. Given this, I can't imagine why O'Hara would think that Grijalva would be overjoyed at having his conversation taped. The staffer may have been too agressive with O'Hara, but he needs to recognize his own obnoxiousness as well. I can't imagine that I would be treated any better by Republican staff members if I did something similar. Some day, I'll treat you all to a retelling of the time I met Randy Graf. I didn't even have a blog back then and wasn't trying to interview him. O'Hara feels he was "assaulted." So, he did the first thing any concientious citizen in such a situation would do: he did a podcast and called a reporter. In today's podcast, he says he will be filing a report with TPD. There were officers at the event; if he felt like a crime had been committed, why didn't he report it at the time? Oh, I know, he was too traumatized and intimidated by the power of the left.|W|P|116048892518146942|W|P|This Is Main Gate Square....|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/10/2006 08:05:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Having talked to O'Hara and both Drake, The Tower knows that Drake didn't protest O'Hara's presence. And no, not because Drake wanted to use the incident to his advantage. Drake just wasn't bothered by it. Grijalva was. Just like Grijalva can't stand it when Drake shows up to his events. Especially public events at a public place (Raul's district office in Tucson).10/10/2006 08:17:00 AM|W|P| Framer|W|P|Tedski,

Bull! Obnoxiousness is never an excuse for assault. The minute a Grijalva guy puts his hands on O'Hara a definate line has been crossed. There is no equivication that makes this OK, none!

Last I checked free speech is free speech as is recording of goings on in a public place at a public forum. I don't know O'Hara and I do believe that he is perhaps annoying, but your support of his being manhandled becuase he doesn't play for your team is wrong.

And your false comparison that "Republicans would do it too!." is immature as well. I'm going to say that "No they wouldn't, and they haven't." If they pulled something like this it would be national televised news. Macaca anyone?

Unless you know somebody that has been assaulted by a similar goon from the Drake or even Graf campaigns, Republicans most especially DON'T act this way.

Still love your blog though.10/10/2006 09:49:00 AM|W|P| GPO|W|P|Rebuttal posted.
http://arizonagrowler.blogsome.com/2006/10/10/rum-romanism-rebellion-rebuttal/10/10/2006 09:59:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Framer -

I have some serious doubts about whether an assault occurred in the first place. All I can tell from the recording is that a staff member for Grijalva intervened. No "Grijalva guy" (and it was not even a guy according to O'Hara's account) put his hands on O'Hara.

I'd buy your "Republicans don't act that way" argument if I hadn't been mobbed by sign swinging Matt Salmon supporters back in 2004.10/10/2006 10:03:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Wait...I mean 2002...its all a blur.10/10/2006 10:07:00 AM|W|P| GPO|W|P|Let me be clear about the "assault" issue: I don't know whether it falls under the legal definition of "assault". I was not physically injured, nor did the staffer intend to injure me. However, I am told that the mere fact that the staffer touched me in the process of losing my property by force makes it assault. We'll see.10/10/2006 10:32:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|The mere fact that a Grijalva staffer touched O'Hara crosses a line. If O'Hara were up in Raul's face, being threatening would be a different story. But from the recording, and witness accounts, O'Hara was being quite civil.10/10/2006 02:37:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Thanks toc001. You've just won the argument for people defending O'Hara because you're personally attacking him.10/10/2006 02:40:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Let me rephrase myself. You're attack him personally...rather than the event that occured.10/10/2006 03:00:00 PM|W|P| GPO|W|P|Too many accounts of the physical contact are wrong. I've posted a clarification.

http://arizonagrowler.blogsome.com/2006/10/10/clarification-on-the-physical-contact-issue/10/10/2006 03:00:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.10/10/2006 03:04:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|So you will tell us about the time you met Randy Graf? That would make a splended Halloween post

(... so, I was standing in line at the supermarket and I turned around and recognized Dracula standing in line with his shopping cart, right behind me...)10/10/2006 05:38:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Due to the nature of the blog, I was unable to fully read the posts. However I looked up the criminal code regarding assault. If the suspect was a public servant (ARS 3-105.33) and Mr. O'Hara felt he was to come to bodily harm by the staffer then he could press charges of a Class 2 misdemeanor. Or the staffer could in turn press charges of a class 1 misdemeanor for threatening an assault which would have occured according to the current blog post had the staffer been male. I will check with a lawyer on this but it seems that there was no harm outside of some damaged equipment.

According to what he has posted, Mr. O'Hara would have not had to deal with this situation at all had he just listened when the staffer stated his time was up regardless of his own personal feelings on the matter.

As for other national events regarding assaults by Republicans on individuals, I direct Mr. Framer to the Florida recount incident in 2000 where a group of Republican congressional staffers rioted and assaulted the officials attempting to recount the votes cast. This was of course national news due to the fact that the recount was national news. However I think what you meant to say is that "Most Republican staffers would never act in this manner."10/10/2006 06:48:00 PM|W|P| Daniel R. Patterson, Editor|W|P|Sounds like a typical wimpy right wing pussy. Hope the media ignores this, but won't be surprised if they don't.

Grijalva may want to say that O'Hara was aggressively his face and personal space and that is unacceptable, but so is an aide muscling someone -- if not a situation of immediate danger to Raul (and if it even happened).

O'Hara, if you can't take some shovin,' don't do the pushin.' Weak guy.10/10/2006 08:18:00 PM|W|P| shrimplate|W|P|WATBs, period.10/10/2006 08:31:00 PM|W|P| Jane Arizona|W|P|"One could argue that [the staffer] was taking advantage of her gender."

Can you imagine what an awesome military strategy this would be? All-female American troops disarming defenseless male insurgents...10/10/2006 09:39:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|My gosh, how do you know just because the staffer was female, that proves he was a wimp? She could have been like Charlotte Atlas or something, you know the staffer who carries all those heavy boxes full of briefing books. Maybe if she had been unsuccessful at getting Mr. O'Hara off the case, her backup plan was to scoop up Congressman Grijalva under one arm and leap like a gazelle up several flights of stairs in record time, force open a locked metal door and then stack 500 lb. blocks up on the other side of the door. Maybe she only merely touched Mr. O'Hara for good reason, because if she'd used all of her strength and pushed him he would have flown several feet backwards through the air and splatted on the wall.

I mean, heck, you guys are jumping to conclusions. How do you know that she didn't just totally overpower the poor, average guy Mr. O'Hara with her Herculanean muscle power? You don't know that for an absolute fact, now do you?10/10/2006 10:00:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|toc001, i think you need a hug. you're an angry person, and you need a hug. everyone give toc a big group hug! there! wasn't that better?10/11/2006 12:04:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I consulted a lawyer with the Maricopa County Attorney's office and he said that my stating that the young man in question can press charges of assault by filing the report with the local police is accurate but that it is indeed the police who would further the case by sending it to the prosecutors.

So we were both right Labwire.

If you want, I can ask a judge about it.

And I can tell the difference between a defendent and plaintiff as well as stay awake all day regarding the other matter. :D10/09/2006 02:52:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce has released its list of candidate endorsements. I'm a bit confused. They endorsed Janet Napolitano, which is nice, but then they endorsed legislative candidates Gail Griffin, Dave Jorgenson and Al Melvin, whose raison d'etre, if their campaigns are to be believed, is to mess with Napolitano. The only thing I can figure is that the Chamber likes the pattern of poorly thought-out legislation getting passed then summarilly vetoed. I'm not sure how that is good for the Chamber's members or the rest of the state for that matter. This makes as much sense as if they endorsed, say, Len Munsil for governor and, I dunno, John Kromko and Molly McKasson for legislature. I see no evidence that these candidates will support the sort of things the Chamber has been pushing for at the capitol. When it comes to things such as Rio Nuevo and support for the University, the Chamber has often had to lobby against elements of the Republican leadership to get the things that they feel will benefit Southern Arizona. Griffin, when she served in the house before, became notorious for voting with leadership over the needs of her district. For example, she voted for a raid on tobacco tax money that would have resulted in the closure of health clinics that served the rural communities of her district, but was a reliable vote when then-Speaker Jeff Groscost needed support for projects in his district. I see no evidence from the statements of Melvin and Jorgenson that their behavior will be any different up there. One endorsement I found strange is the one for Bill Phillips. Well, yes, Phillips is exactly the sort of "Chamber of Commerce Republican" you would expect to find in any state in the union. However, the endorsement of Phillips was over Steve Farley, a man that has prided himself on his ability to work with the business community. This is what led to the criticism of Farley before the primary that he had "sold out" to them in the whole RTA vote (not a criticism I buy). It seems silly to endorse someone who is going to lose anyway over a someone who has demonstrated a willingness to reach out, even when it makes his liberal friends angry. (Interestingly, one of the things that Farley brought up constantly during the primary is a change in property taxes that would benefit small buisiness. The audiences would glaze over at this, but you'd think the Chamber would care.) The funny thing is, Farley will be elected. Should Jorgenson, Melvin and Griffin be elected (I hope not), who do you think the Chamber will go to when they want to lobby for some need for Southern Arizona? I have a feeling that it won't be Jorgenson, Melvin or Griffin. I can't really complain too much. They did endorse my brother. The chamber also endorsed Ron Drake over Raúl Grijalva. This puts Grijalva at a perfect record of 0-7 for Chamber endorsements in his races. He's won everytime without them, so why start now? They don't endorse him, but they love those earmarks he gets for them. They also endorsed Randy Graf. Randy Graf? See, liberal bozos like me always say you guys would endorse Benito Mussolini or Jean-Bédel Bokassa if he promised to cut taxes. This sort of thing just gives me more ammunition to say ridiculous things like that.|W|P|116043381898216775|W|P|Chamber of Commerce Endorses...and I Am Confused|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/09/2006 04:13:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.10/09/2006 07:57:00 PM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|Wow, Tedski, someone posted something obnoxious enough to get the ax? Haven't seen that in awhile. I'm sure it was deserved.

The endorsement that took me by surprise was before the primary when of the democratic contenders the Chamber chose Alex Rodriguez.

I don't have the sense that the Chamber endorsements have much impact.10/09/2006 09:19:00 PM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|If the question is addressed to me, not alleging there is a problem.

The endorsement of Alex Rodriguez surprised me. (Graf does too to some extent.)

Do you think the Chamber endorsements have much impact? You hold office. I don't. Would respect your thoughts on the matter.10/09/2006 09:45:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Tom, do you even have a Republican opponent?10/10/2006 04:51:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I also think that the way the candidates respond to the Chamber's questions as well as interviews has something to do with it Tom.