10/31/2006 08:34:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Tommorrow, the Tucson Weekly will print the results of a poll undertaken by Republican pollster Margaret Kenski in CD 8. Word on the street is that the poll shows Gabrielle Giffords still maintaining a double digit lead against Randy Graf. Check the Weekly's blog tommorrow. If they do what they did last time they did a poll, it will probably be posted at noon.|W|P|116235256457755323|W|P|Tommorrow's Kenski Poll|W|P|prezelski@aol.com11/01/2006 08:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Fantastic news. I knew it had to be true given the desperate and lying ads that are running from Randy Graf's campaign. Negative ads in the last week of the election typically demonstrate real desperation.

If Graf were winning right now, he would be running positive ads that are aimed at attracting independents and moderates to his campaign.11/01/2006 08:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...a question...what effect might a large win by Giffords (in a Republican district) have on Pederson and his race?

Second, to what extent are the Grijalva's and Pastor's districts being mobilized for this vote. They do not have much of a test and high turnout in these Democratic strongholds is necessary to a Pederson come from behind victory.10/31/2006 10:32:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Some of you political geeks out there probably know who Constantine Querard is. He is a political consultant up in Maricopa County who works to get ultra-conservative candidates elected to office. Many of the candidates he has worked for have run afoul of campaign finance laws. Most infamously, David Burnell Smith, who was thrown out of the legislature for violating Clean Elections statutes, was a Querard client. Querard is currently working on the races of Southern Arizona candidates Al Melvin and Dave Jorgenson. Querard is charging the campaigns a fee of $100 per month, which is far below market value and amounts to an unreported in-kind contribution to the campaigns. Jorgenson has a debt of $4,238.20 reported on his pre-primary report to one Querard firm, High Noon Productions, that magically disappears in his next report. If the debt was forgiven, this would be an out-of-bounds in-kind contribution. This, by the way, is almost identical to the sort of thing that got David Burnell Smith thrown out of the State House. Something else that is interesting is that Melvin has expenses listed for "joint mailers." Were these with Jorgenson? Jorgenson doesn't list the expenses on his report. Looks like Querard and his candidates are up to their old tricks.|W|P|116231773099660727|W|P|Querard Rears His Head in Baja Arizona|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/31/2006 11:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I guess we don’t want to discuss the issues facing the voters of LD 26.

To paraphrase:

Your comment contained baseless and hurtful personal allegations against Al and David, and were also hurtful towards their hard working campaign consultant.

This is totally out of bounds, even in this campaign which has gotten nasty on several occasions. I am aware that some supporters of one of Al’s primary opponents were circulating this rumor months ago, but the candidate had enough class to put the kibosh on it.

I suppose if you can't win any other way, you do crap like this. One thing I can tell you though, you can't do it on my blog.10/31/2006 12:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|He’s technically not operating in Baja Arizona, more like Alta Pima County. You could say he is in Baja Pinal County if you needed to use the term Baja.

Either way I think conservatives have established a solid presence in the region.10/31/2006 12:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|It ain't baseless...you can check the campaign finance reports.10/31/2006 12:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger OVD|W|P|Ted Prezelski,

I know you are sore about not being able to find 210 people to donate $5 for your campaign but that is no reason to lash out at others with petty accusations.

Since you are new to the area it must have been tough to find 210 supporters. Wait, your ancestors have been here since before statehood and you couldn’t rustle up a few $5 forms? It must be that you are not politically connected. Wait, your own brother serves in the state legislature and you could get him to help you find a few supporters. Maybe your name recognition is low. But you have one of the leading political blogs in Southern Arizona. Surely you have 210 friends from that. I know, you did not have enough time. David Jorgenson took about 5 weeks to collect and turn in his forms. What, you were in the race about the same time as David and could still not collect enough forms. Oh, you were working. Funny, so was David. He runs his own business. I am sure you are not bitter after so many advantages and such a pathetic showing in your legislative race so I will just assume you are having a bad day and took it out on two honorable men. I had come to expect a little better from you but we are all disappointed now and then.10/31/2006 12:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Sandy-

Yeah, you are right, I have no right to comment because I couldn't collect the $5 forms.

These accusations aren't petty, similar charges got a person thrown out of the legislature.10/31/2006 12:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Violating campaign finance laws IS a campaign issue facing the voters of LD 26. Ted is well within bounds raising this concern. If there's no merit to the allegations, then Melvin and Jorgenson have nothing to worry about, right? Why lash out at somebody who's raising a concern that has direct bearing on the credibility and leadership abilities of two people seeking public office. Trying to distract from the valid concerns by attacking the messenger seems to me pretty petty and a little desperate.10/31/2006 12:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger OVD|W|P|tedski,

Ah, I see, guilt by association. Constantine works for Smith. Smith was thrown out of the legislature. Constantine works for Al and David. They must be guilty of the same thing as Smith. Thanks for pointing that out, otherwise I would have missed the connection.

You have as much right to criticize Al and David as the guy running the Homewrecker for Congress guy has to comment on Gabby’s dating schedule. (oops, now you will sensor my comment.)

I believe Smith was thrown out for spending more than 10% (or so) over the allowed amount. Is that the charge you are making here?10/31/2006 01:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger OVD|W|P|Michael,

Was I lashing out? I am so sorry.

Tedski got pretty hot under the collar when someone looked into Gabby’s hookup with a married man. I just thought Ted would want to be careful when he makes guilt by association charges against two candidates.

Ted kind of has a history of this sort of thing. He got all into some report that Kyl was in a car accident back in 1999. Imagine, a U.S. Senator having the gall to be in a car accident and not serve prison time for it. The nerve.10/31/2006 01:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Sandy-

The lawsuit against Kyl was a matter of public record. Melvin's and Jorgenson's campaign finance reports are a matter of public record. The charge against Giffords was personal and made up.

All into? The reference was part of a larger post about the way the press deals with incumbents.10/31/2006 01:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Maricopa Isn't Evil|W|P|Ah, the high drama of campaign finance...

I looked at Jorgenson's finance reports that you linked to and it looks like he did it right. He posted a debt/obligation when he commited to an expense, then he cleared the debt and report the actual expenditure when he actually paid the invoice. Frankly, that's more detail than the other candidates I looked at for the sake of comparison.

It didn't disappear, it became an actual expenditure of an exact amount, rather than a committed figure of an anticipated amount.

Now I do understand the smear by association tactic, but none of this is even remotely similar to what David Smith was accused of. Smith was accused of overspending by more than 10%.

So what is the "market rate" for consulting on state legislative races? And who determines fair market value?10/31/2006 01:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger robf|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.10/31/2006 01:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Maricopa Isn't Evil|W|P|Help me Tedski, help me to understand the difference between conservative candidates and ultra-conservative candidates. Is there really an ideological difference, or is that just something that lefties do to try and make conservatives seem extreme?

In our current Legislature, give us two examples of a liberal Republican, 2 moderate Republicans, 2 conservative Republican, and 2 ultra-conservative Republicans. If there aren't any in a category, you can say so.

Now just to be fair, let's do the Dems too. 2 conservative Dems, 2 moderate Dems, 2 liberal Dems, and of course, 2 ultra-liberal Dems.

This would be an informative exercise for your readers. Thanks!10/31/2006 02:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Wow...someone touched a nerve here. Either there is a good "bloggo-defend squad" out there that has not surfaced before now...if that is the case...welcome!

..OR..Tedski has touched a button that someone didn't want pushed.


I am enjoying the exchange and have nothing to ad. Am ignorant on this particular subject.10/31/2006 02:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger robf|W|P|Man oh man, you guys should put a bandaid on that nerve.

I'm always curious why people who are already ideologically opposed to a speaker would bother to post a comment to his blog.

Ted, are you really going to "sensor" Sandy? That sounds awfully intrusive. Sort of like caring what a politician does in his/her personal life.

And what's with the repeated references to Ted's campaign? I assume it's simply an attempt to wound him personally. Which I think is pretty cheap. But that's me.10/31/2006 02:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Ted are you going to investigate this sweetheart deal or is it OK with you if rich people with private businesses suck off of the public dole?

I know this above story pales in comparison to the $4,000 that Jorgenson listed as an obligation until he paid the bill (standard accounting practice) but it seems like the City of Tucson could have spent that money somewhere else besides making a rich family even richer.10/31/2006 03:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger OVD|W|P|I think it is Al Melvin who has struck a nerve. Someone forget to tell him No Conservative Allowed. Constantine’s role in this is irrelevant. His job is to develop mailers and ads that highlight the differences between the candidates. He does his work well and in LD 26 turned a 3-term incumbent state senator into stale dog food.

Querard is not a CPA, campaign treasurer, or financial manager. If he were then it would be worth mentioning his name. Ted brought up Constantine because it allowed him to play the I Hate Maricopa card and because he wanted to smear Al and David with what happened to Representative Smith in LD 7. There is no connection so Ted was just looking to smear them.

I am posting comments on this blog because Ted has made salacious accusation against very honest and straightforward citizens who have made the sacrifice to enter public service. If Ted cannot compete in the market place of ideas he is free to start a restricted, initiation only myspace account and his moveon.org sycophants can write in all the time and tell him how great he is. He made an ugly insinuation in a public forum and I am responding. If he cannot take the heat perhaps he is using the wrong forum.10/31/2006 03:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Well, well, well. Looks like Connie Q got irked and brought out the attack dogs.

How typical of a slimeball like Connie to send an attack dog like "sandy" to use personal attacks to respond to Tedski's attack on campaign financing.

Hit below the belt when others hit clean and hard. That's Connie's game.10/31/2006 03:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger OVD|W|P|I think Ted is actually the one who hits below the belt. Did he contact Al or David for a comment before running his accusations?

What did Ted mean by his last line “are up to their old tricks.” Oh, like using Clean Elections that was meant for liberals only but conservatives are having better luck with it. You all have seething jealousy written all over your faces.10/31/2006 04:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Maricopa Isn't Evil|W|P|Lost in all of this heated rhetoric is the fact that all of Melvin and Jorgenson's reports were the same since their campaigns began, and nobody who knows anything about campaign finance has filed so much as a complaint. Looking at the Clean Elections website and the agendas from their meetings, I don't see any complaints against any of Querard's clients. So neither the reporting nor the consulting fee has been deemed even a potential violation by anyone until today's post.

This looks like much ado about nothing, but still a good way for folks to vent prior to next Tuesday's big day...

And don't blame Ted for posting incendiary and/or baseless things on his website. If his goal is to create controversy and excitement, then judging by the number of posts here, he's doing a great job of that!

The National Enquirer sells more papers than most real newspapers. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned there for the rest of us that Ted already knows!10/31/2006 04:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger robf|W|P|Man Ted, I have to congratulate you. I had no idea you had this sort of power.

And Sandy, this is not a public forum. Your comments are here at Ted's whim. Since he has the right to remove anything you say, but apparently has the good nature not to, this is apparently private space and therefore subject to censoring.

Apparently however, he just has better manners than you do. I've noticed that most people here who disagree with Ted's politics still have the courtesy to confine their responses to just that, his politics. Not his personal life, electoral success, or lack thereof.

Just out of curiosity, who are we all seethingly jealous of?10/31/2006 05:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger OVD|W|P|robf,

Ted has put his personal life on public record on this blog. It is a public forum because anyone is free to read it. Yes, Ted can and does delete comments that do not fit his partisan, netroots view of the world.

Ted has demonstrated very poor manners in insinuating that there was more to a car accent in 1999 because it was settled out of court and the newspapers did not investigate. With no proof he implies a cover up.

His lack of electoral success goes to motivation. Ted is a sore looser so he wanders up to LD 26 where a conservative won fair and square and implies that he has skirted the law with no proof, finding of law, or a ruling from the clean election commission. Yet he gets very upset when someone wants to discuss that Gabby is engaged to a man who was recently married, now divorced with small kids. (BTW Marriage, births, divorces, and re-marriages are all matters of public record.)

Ted’s post was not about politics. It was a hit piece, i.e. “consultant up in Maricopa County”, “ultra-conservative”, “have run afoul of campaign finance”, “far below market value”, “magically disappears”, “out-of-bounds”, and “thrown out.” All incendiary terms used to juice up a story short on substance and long in innuendo. Ted has stooped below his own standard of getting it right. Here he is just wallowing in the gutter of attack politics.10/31/2006 05:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|phx kid,
You said, "Ted are you going to investigate this sweetheart deal or is it OK with you if rich people with private businesses suck off of the public dole?"

I have been really curious as to why the Graf campaign didn't do something with this until recently. If I had been Graf's campaign manager, I would have had this on the air within a week of winning the primary. Then, I would have given it a rest and aired it again and again. This is the kind of thing that really ticks off voters. This could have swung some undecided voters over to Graf had it been out there right away. Now its too late because Giffords doesn't need to respond.

I'm wondering if some of the other people involved in this deal didn't want to be "outed." It just seems like a real missed opportunity for the Republicans. They can try using it in 2008, but I don't think it will have nearly as much impact at that time.10/31/2006 05:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|sandy,
Your comments about Ted's tactics make me wonder if he has been listening to conservative talk radio. In other words, perhaps conservatives living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Anyhow, give it a rest. You've made your point.

And, BTW, that "homewrecker" story is a cheap shot. Unless you've got dated film footage, then its just an attempt at character assassination that reflects worse on the "messenger" than the accused. Go back to Rove school and polish your techniques.10/31/2006 06:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger robf|W|P|Sandy,

Huh, and here I thought I was reading a blog used for spreading one man's opinion about local politics. Kyl quietly settled an automobile accident that was serious enough to merit a law suit? Sounds like politics. Allegations and rumors that Republicans might be involved in shady campaign financial dealings? (I know, it must be a shock.) Sounds like politics. Repeating a rumor that a woman might have been boinking a now-divorced man before his divorce? Hmm. I guess I just don't see the relevance. And I don't even like Gabby.

And, given the fact that Ted never used this (personal) blog to pimp his own political ambitions, or to slander or defame his opponents, or to personally attack you (oh I forgot, your personal life is completely concealed here huh?), I'll stand by my assertion that Mr. Prezelski has far, far more manners and common courtesy than you possess. But again, that's just one man's opinion.

Anyway, time to go home. Happy Halloween.10/31/2006 08:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger OVD|W|P|robf,

“serious enough to merit a lawsuit” Is that now the standard, even if it has been settled?

Then the check cashing charges against Tom Prezelski are certainly fair game. It does not matter if the lawsuit has been settled or the charges dismissed only that a charge or accusation was made. That is a great standard but it should apply to both parties.10/31/2006 08:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|Well, I'm going by the old adage that where there's smoke there's fire. And all these volunteer firemen showing up where we've never heard them before? The smoke seems thicker than before.10/31/2006 08:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|maricopa isn't evil?

Is this what we call an oxymoron?

And if you northerners think we're entertained by the Baja Pinal jokes etc., you must not know who elected Janet Napolitano, or who swung Arizona for Bill Clinton, and dare I say, who will send Jon Kyl skidding into history's dust heap. With the help of all the other counties, of course.

And if you dream that Arizona is moving your way, you've got zero sea legs, and no barometer in sight. The Goldwater Republicans have decided they'd rather vote Democrat than be racial, religious, and sexual bigots and lying political opportunists ...just like Barry himself decided before them.10/31/2006 09:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Erik|W|P|Sandy, how can you even mention Tom Prezelski in attacking Ted Prezelski with something Ted had nothing to do with? Just because they were born on the same day? You republican whack job....10/31/2006 09:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chris|W|P|Looks like someone started a pissing match and then got upset when everyone got wet.10/31/2006 10:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Wow, that got heated.

Does anyone really seriously believe that Tedski did not intend to mix it up a little with the right-wingers when his headline contains “Rears His Head?”11/01/2006 01:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger robf|W|P|Maybe this will be the last word. Sure, I think Tom's troubles are newsworthy. And, if I remeber, they were reported on. Don't know what Tom's stuff has to to with Ted though. And, I think a US Senator is a tad more high-profile than a state rep. So, I think Kyl is probably due for a bit more scrutiny than Tom. And I still don't see why any of this merits personal attacks on Ted. But again, that's just me.10/31/2006 08:20:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Last week, a mailer from the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund hit mailboxes in CD 8. The mailer endorsed Randy Graf and Jon Kyl. By the way, the mailer was a post card that looked like something that a particularly dull neighborhood association would put out. Geez, here I thought the NRA was well funded. One paragraph on the mailer interested me:
He voted for HB 2218 which would allow concealed carry permit holders into restaurants that serve liquor.
For those of you that remember, this was the bill that Graf was famously ridiculed for on an episode of the Daily Show. You can check it out here. A part that was my particular favorite was when Graf compared the United States Constitution to the rules of golf. I'm not sure how publicizing his vote on this bill helps him, the bill was roundly criticized even by Republicans. The folks that like it are allready with him. This must be why he hasn't broken 40% yet.|W|P|116230869902361538|W|P|And This Will Win Him Votes Because...?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/31/2006 08:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|That HB 2218 vote definitely wins him Marco Allatorre's vote!

Obviously the plan is to get as many rabid gun supporters as possible behind Graf so on election day they can storm the voting locations, accuse those who disagree with them of treason, and lock them up indefinitely without benefit of trial (but at least the waterboardings will be provided gratis).10/31/2006 09:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Eh...as I say to good ole Marco...they need to be storming the Republican gates instead. They have empowered the ATF and Homeland Security so much (under Patriot Act) that they are going to be monitored from here to kingdom come on anything related to guns.

The war on terror and lax gun laws are incompatible.10/31/2006 05:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|As I understand, the idea of the bill was that, sort of like a designated driver, the designated gunman wouldn't drink.

Since the six-shooter (or whatever)would be, by definition "concealed", this might have posed problems for bartenders, just as in the case of the designated driver -- you know, "Well, maybe just one."

What about large black rubber-stamps in the very center of the forehead, to warn bartenders and innocent bystanders alike?

Or would it once more come down to the lawyers vs. the breathalyzers?10/31/2006 07:14:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Political prognosticator Charlie Cook has moved the race between J. D. Hayworth and Harry Mitchell from "Leans Republican" to "Toss Up." He also stated:
THERE IS NO EBB IN THE WAVE: With the election just eight days away, there are no signs that this wave is abating. Barring a dramatic event, we are looking at the prospect of GOP losses in the House of at least 20 to 35 seats, possibly more, and at least four in the Senate, with five or six most likely.
|W|P|116230432798980706|W|P|CD 5 - Charlie Cook Revises Rating|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/31/2006 07:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Yeah, I saw that this morning, although I am not really sure I believe it. It still feels like a leaning Republican to me.

Hopefully the voters will prove me wrong next Tuesday.10/31/2006 09:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I read it also...the Cookster is my hero.

I still think that polls will underestimate turnout by dems, independents, Hispanics, and young voters this time.10/31/2006 04:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I do not think people realise just how disliked JD is here in my district.

Harry has been pushing hard on JD and he has been pushing in Scottsdale as well as in the other places he is not as known.10/30/2006 06:47:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Some internal polling after the primary showed Democrat Charlene Pesquiera dead even with Republican Al Melvin. The RINO hunters on the Republican side may have overplayed their hand here. Even though they can't stand the "liberalism" (their word) of Toni Hellon and Pete Hershberger, it may, in fact, be reflective of the sort of Republicans that live in the district. The State Democratic Party is looking at the place for a possible pickup. The party has sent in Katie Bolger, a fantastic organizer, to take care of things in the district. Folks that have observed the volunteer operation have been very impressed by the amount of people they have been able to put on the streets. (Quick, name the last Democrats to represent the area we now call District 26. Hint, it wasn't called District 26 back then.) The organization is also in place to help house candidate Lena Saradnik. The way we elect house members can invite all sorts of mischief, and Saradnik could slip in if enough Democratic voters chose not to use their second votes, and moderate Hershberger voters give her their second vote. Given how Melvin and Dave Jorgenson feel about moderate Republicans, I don't know why they should expect their votes anyway. NB - Back in the old District 12, Reid Ewing was a State Representative in the 1980's. In the 1970's, Sue Dye was a State Senator from the area. Also serving as a State Representative from the district for a single term was, of all people, John Kromko.|W|P|116226141666014890|W|P|District 26 Update|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/30/2006 08:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Nice post...I know how hard it is to find out about polling in state legislative districts. I appreciate the information.

We are hoping for some real pickups in our state legislature. Even just an evening out on committees could be enough to drive keep the hardcore right-wingers like Pearce and Gould from having a strangle-hold on the process.

My fav. Republican down here in the pueblo, and someone who is QUITE well known in Republican circles, is voting Giffords and Democrat this year. Don't get me wrong, she is not shifting her party registration, but in her words "she wants those asshole right wingers to leave and for the moderates to take back her party."

She is dreaming of course...the right will just dig in deeper, even after defeat. The thing about conflict is that when you alienate the moderates, you are left with extremes who talk amongst themselves and who end up alienating the moderates even more.10/30/2006 10:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|As an LD26 Dem, I'm glad to read this post, Tedski, as it might attract some attention to what is going on in NW Pima County. Lena has been running a smart campaign on the ground since the early spring and her name ID is very high up here. Charlene got a later start, but she has made the most of the time she has been in the race. Katie has been an energetic and intelligent leader, as has Cheryl Cage, Lena's campaign manager. The state party is investing a lot of money in direct mail up here, too.

Besides the fact that Dems have two strong candidates in LD26, the fratricidal GOP primary could help us win both races. Pete Hershberger called Al Melvin an "extremist" in the latest edition of the Northwest Explorer. Many Toni Hellon supporters are backing Charlene and many Republicans in our district have been voting for moderates for years. the new breed gives them the willies!

It is also very possible that BOTH Hershberger and Jorgenson backers will cast their second vote for Lena. Pete's people will do so because they can't abide Jorgenson. But, David's supporters might also vote for Lena to oust Pete and hope that they can knock off Lena two years hence.

All of this excitement on behalf of our legislative team also bodes well for Giffords, who may pick up support in this district most recently represented by Steve Huffman.10/30/2006 10:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Hershberger will be termed out of House after the next term [he's served 3 terms so far], so his seat will be open two years from now.10/31/2006 06:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|I appreciate the reminder, CC Burro, but Hellon was also set to be termed out in two years and the right-wingers still went after her in the primary. Had they run "two Jorgensons" in the House race, Pete might already be gone. There is a strong chance that some of their more strident folks wouldn't mind seeing him lose the general so that they could try to run two conservatives in 2008...and cite his loss this year as one of the reasons for their candidacies. I'm sure they'll do that no matter what, but if Pete lost to Lena it would buttress their case to the party faithful.10/31/2006 08:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|REX SCOTT--You're right. I hadn't thought about that.

Lena will be a wonderful state representative--hard-working, ethical, and open to different viewpoints.

Melvin and his rhetoric is not helpful for the Republican Party or Arizona. He keeps bringing up "the culture war", comparing conservative Republicans and Democrats/moderate Republicans as in good and evil.10/31/2006 09:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|District 26 Dems can vote for Lena Seradnik twice - but voting just once for her.

If all the Ds single-shot her, and the Rational Rs cross over to vote for her AND for Pete Hershberger, the Dems can pick up this seat.

Please single-shot Lena if you live in Dist. 26!10/31/2006 02:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I would also add...donate to Charlene's campaign. She is not running Clean (didn't get the signatures I guess) but can raise money.10/31/2006 07:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Donate to Charlene, Al needs the money (matching funds.)10/30/2006 05:09:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of my operatives tells me that a guy named Bill Clinton is coming to Tucson on Thursday to campaign for Democratic nominees. I'm not sure who this guy is, but I hear he resembles blogger George Tuttle.|W|P|116225382389758465|W|P|Arkansan Travels Here|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/30/2006 05:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|I think I've heard of him.

Isn't he the guy married to that Senator from New York??10/30/2006 05:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Didn't he come here once and "eat the whole thing" at Mi Nidito?10/30/2006 06:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Garrett O'Hara|W|P|I guess they figure some nobody will be more effective than Nancy Pelosi.10/30/2006 06:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You sure it is Bill Clinton and not Denny Hastert trying to scare people from voting for Dems by showing up at our fundraisers?10/30/2006 04:41:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I've seen some ads and comments from people that are supporting the R. J. Reynolds backed Proposition 206. I'm a bit confused by it. I saw an interview with one supporter of 206, and he said that unlike 201, 206 represents "freedom." Their advertisements have sent this message as well. This has also been reflected in the flyers that can be seen at local bars that accompany the number 201 with a slash and 206 with an American flag. Apparently, the choice between the two is "more freedom" vs "less freedom." Let me see if I understand the difference: 201 bans smoking at bars and restaurants, while 206 only bans smoking at restaurants. So, banning smoking at restaurants is Jeffersonian Democracy, but if you include bars you might as well invite the North Korean army in? I don't think I support either proposition. Such regulations are being well handled by local communities, and 206 would, in fact, bar localities from writing any regulations entirely. As usual, the public is ill served by the well funded but uninstructive rhetoric around a ballot proposition.|W|P|116225240239275540|W|P|201 and 206: You Are Either For Freedom, Or Against It|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/30/2006 06:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Garrett O'Hara|W|P|I agree completely. Kudos.10/30/2006 10:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tony GOPrano|W|P|Ted,
This one is EASY! Just look at who supports what...The Cancer Society is for 201 & against 206. It's a no brainer if your a non-smoker...10/28/2006 06:01:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Okay, I have done something I've been tempted to do in the past, but have never done: I've deleted a comment. I've deleted spam before, but not a real subtantive comment. The comment contained baseless and hurtful personal allegations against Gabrielle Giffords and her fianceé, Commander Mark Kelly, and were also hurtful towards Kelly's children and ex-wife. This is totally out of bounds, even in this campaign which has gotten nasty on several occasions. I am aware that some supporters of one of Giffords's primary opponents were circulating this rumor months ago, but the candidate had enough class to put the kibosh on it. I suppose if you can't win any other way, you do crap like this. One thing I can tell you though, you can't do it on my blog. NB - Why just get angry? Check the right-hand column and donate to Gabrielle's campaign or one of the campaigns of one of our other fine Democrats.|W|P|116208429909975248|W|P|Now I've Gone and Done It|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/28/2006 06:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|The rumor, for those of you who don't know (and Tedski, I'm not gonna let you quiet this one) is that Gabby Giffords, her fiancee, his ex and kids, and other members of the liberal elite - have all conspired to alter the polling data coming out of CD8.

Seriously - TOGETHER they have found a way to make all the polls look like Gabby is winning BIG TIME.

Freaking Jerks.

Oh yeah, and they all HATE AMERICA!10/28/2006 07:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Hmmm, Tedski. Nothing that bad appears to have shown up anywhere else, but will keep my eyes open.

A guy named Marco seems to have visited just about every place griping about her fender bender and making assertions about gun control, but nothing like what you've described, and I did not delete his remarks.

Thanks for posting about this. I will pay a little more attention to the comments (not that I get many, but you never know).

I was expecting all sorts of ugly stuff after the primary and was surprised when very little occurred. In fact, things have been a lot calmer since 9/12.

Maybe we're in for a final week of venom.10/29/2006 05:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Art Jacobson|W|P|Well done, Ted.10/29/2006 08:13:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|The Sonoran Alliance, that well-known enclave for sophisticated reactionary thought, today has a link to a blog set up solely to tout this ugliness.

I think people see this stuff for what it is and we don't even need to define it for them. The anti-Ford ad in Tennessee is the most prominent national example of this sort of campaigning. Republicans have been engaging in these tactics since Newt made them part of their core playbook, but the reality of what six years of GOP hegemony in Washington has done to this country has stripped away the compassionate conservative window dressing and left the real intent and impact of right-wing priorities exposed for all to see.

Thus, the "venom" was bound to be injected into the body politic, but the anti-venin has been there all along and will counter its usual effects.10/29/2006 09:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|The counter to all of this is to get out and vote, get your friends to vote, and strike a real blow against this adminstration, the Congress, and our own state legislature.

We have to say over and over what is true. The Republicans control all parts of the government (save for our governor) and all we have seen from them is corruption, deficits, costly wars, and the like. What have the brought us? A tax cut for the wealthy coupled with increased government spending?

Donate to the candidates that Ted speaks of. Also, don't forget Charlene Pesquiera who did not qualify for Clean Elections and who can accept contributions. Might help her in her bid to keep Al Melvin out of Phoenix.10/29/2006 10:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 206isCancer.com|W|P|In regard to whatever it was that someone posted that you found objectionable enough to remove and the strange details that you mention, I feel that curiosity might kill this cat. The fact that you found some details about one of the candidates so extremely objectionable that you deleted it may have added flames to the fire. WHICH primary opponent was talking about WHAT involving Gabby, her fiancée, his ex-wife (not important, but I had no idea he was previously married) and his kids (no idea that he had kids)? I have always thought that he was some kind of American hero, and that he and Gabby were just a young (well, except the fact that he’s bald), happy couple. If whatever you don’t want us to know about is just some salacious hearsay, that does not contribute to political discourse at all, but now I admit that my human nature has me a bit curious as to what was posted.10/29/2006 10:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Garrett O'Hara|W|P|I'm not disbelieving, but I'm still waiting on somebody to provide some legitimate sourcing or research before I take it for truth. Anybody who takes it for truth right now is agreeably stupid.10/29/2006 01:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Well, because Ted made it easy, I just donated to Mr. Pederson. He seems to really be catching fire and I am impressed with his hard-hitting campaign as of the last few weeks. I had already contributed to each of the other three candidates.

I am an independent, the administration, Congress, and our state legislature has angered me beyond belief.

I hope this little bit helps.

Donate everyone and be a part of this huge year!10/29/2006 08:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|OH NOE! Let's put her in the stocks and make her wear a scarlet "A" around her neck! *rolls eyes*10/30/2006 10:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I just read that rumor over on the Sonoran Alliance site and I have this to say about it, if it's true.

Ho hum.

This crap wouldn't even make the cut on a Mormon soap opera. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz10/30/2006 01:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Now you really got my curiousity up. First of all, how bad could it be? Secondly, no one has denied it so whatever it was, is the real reason it was deleted because it hit too close to the truth?

I don't know since I missed whatever the post was but I get very suspect when someone deletes a comment then devotes a whole thread to why they did it.

Besides, I hear a friend of Kelly's ex had some harsh words to say about Giffords. If the Republicans haven't used that yet, they never will. More than likely they are just venting because they are figuring they are losing. If it was any kind of a strategy they would have used whatever they have earlier.

I certainly have heard a lot worse than anything to do with her private life which most people don't care about anyway. I say don't stress it. Unless she was caught beating up or molesting his kids no one gives a hoot. And I highly doubt she did either of those things.10/30/2006 01:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Bored, I still can't find it. You have a link?

That Kyrsten Sinema sure is a fox. Too bad she bats for the other team.10/30/2006 04:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Why are you guys so worried to know what was in a rumor? I don't know, and I don't care what it was.

Isn't there enough real news out there to keep you occupied?

Besides, you should know that anything that originates with Randy Graf supporters has to be taken with a grain of salt anyway.

Jeesh!10/27/2006 10:37:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Bill Richardson will be in Tucson next Thursday to campaign for Gabrielle Giffords. He will be making his appearance at 3:30, stay tuned to this station for details.|W|P|116201402362680034|W|P|He May Have to Admit That Our Tamales Are Better|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/28/2006 05:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Homewrecker For Congress|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.10/28/2006 06:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|And our bolo ties are better too. Seriously - Raul rocks your neckwear world Mr. Governor ANY DAY!10/29/2006 10:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|Yes but we may have to concede the Carne Adovada and the Sopapillas!10/29/2006 12:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Marco Alatorre|W|P|But what about the carne asada burritos?10/29/2006 12:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Yeah but the red and the green....mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

MMMMMMMMMMMMM!10/29/2006 06:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger SonoranDesertRat|W|P|We are actually talking about defecting to New Mexico, if for nothing else than the bowls of chile. Yes, the red and green chiles here are excellent.... but you just simply can't get 'em like they make 'em in New Mexico.10/29/2006 09:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I agree Sonoran! Holy...best chile I have ever had!

However, I have never had (or even seen) carne seca until I came here to Tucson. It must be something uniquely Sonoran and I tell you...it is AWESOME.

Maybe we could do a giant trade of Bowls of green and red for carne seca????10/30/2006 12:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Erik|W|P|New Mexico nor Arizona have anything on the Tex-Mex from Tejas.10/30/2006 12:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Erik:

I'll have to disagree with that, and be the judge of that, having lived in (and eaten green chili in) all three states.

1. New Mexico
2. Arizona
3. Texas

Incidentally, Bill Richardson was my congressman for awhile when I lived in New Mexico, and he was a 'get it done' type of guy back then. He is the kind of politician who doesn't run for office because he wants a nice desk, he's the kind of guy who runs for office so he can get out and do good things for people. And I can tell you something else too-- Bill Richardson is not the kind of guy who would ever have voted for the war in Iraq if there was any diplomatic option on the table.10/30/2006 03:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|See what you guys did now? I had to run out and get some beef and pull my Roasted Hatch Chiles out of the freezer and make some Green chile tonight! MMMMMMMMM!

My kids don't like the hot stuff so my wife and I don't need to share!

Easy Mac for the Kids tonight!10/30/2006 04:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|toc001:

That it Hatch, New Mexico green chiles (not far from Nutt).10/30/2006 08:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|The beauty of the Hatch Chiles when you cook with them is the "slow burn".

You get the flavor coming through first and then the heat builds. Much more enjoyable than jalapeno or habanero.

Got home and the wife had dinner already! Aggghhhh!

It was nice salmon, but I was looking froward to the chile10/27/2006 07:09:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|An update on the Sunnyside School Board shenanigans: Word has come down through the transom that there are doubts about the Linda Lopez resignation letter. People have seen a draft, but there are questions about whether it has actually been delivered to the Sunnyside School Board. Folks are wondering if she just did this to mess with plans to recall her from the board and are speculating that she in fact wants to stick around. I'm still wondering why she would knock off the sitting president of the board, install herself, then resign. All of this, but she still wants the added headache of being minority leader of the State House?|W|P|116200211408792017|W|P|Did She, Or Didn't She?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/27/2006 06:27:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|We here at R Cubed, we're like the Pinkertons, agents all over. One of my high ranking opperatives spotted the weekly anti-war/pro-war protest over at Speedway and Euclid. These have taken an electoral tone as of late, with the pro-war protestors carrying signs for Republican candidates. There was a group of people holding Jon Kyl and Ron Drake signs. The Drake supporters also had a new sign:
Deport Grijalva
Ah, classy guys. If you don't get the joke, you see is Hispanic, so we can send him back to Mexico, right? There are also bumper stickers being circulated around town that say "Deport Grijalva" as well. Before anyone claims that this is about policy and not about race, why haven't there been any "Deport Pederson," "Deport Giffords," "Deport Napolitano," or "Deport Flake" for that matter? Well, Napolitano could sound Hispanic, but, she's of Italian descent. God knows, the Republicans wouldn't mock people of Italian descent, would they? Just so you know, Grijalva was born here, his family having moved from Canoa (near where Randy Graf's favorite Green Valley golf courses are now). His father had come to Arizona as part of the bracero program, the World War II program to bring Mexican farmworkers here to fill the gaps for Americans that were fighting overseas. Funny, no one was asking for them to be deported then. This, along with the earlier "American Name" incident, tells me that many of the folks that come out for Drake don't seem to understand that merely having a Spanish surname doesn't make you less American. I find this particularly insulting, given that my Hispanic ancestors were here one hundred years before any significant Anglo population was here. I guess they all needed to be deported.|W|P|116200125573551114|W|P|More Assinine Humor From Our Republican Friends|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/27/2006 07:59:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Oh, come now Tedski. A sign that says "Deport Grijalva" is nothing. I've seen protestors carrying signs that have read "Bush is a Nazi", "Bush=Hitler", "Stop American Imperialism". That's pretty assinine and frankly just ignorant. I happened to be in Tucson today too, and drove by the same street rally. I saw anti-war protestors on one side of the street, and I saw pro-Kyl/Drake people on the other side. I would hardly call people supporting a candidate "pro-war" protestors. I seem to recall a number of hispanic people with the Kyl-Drake people too, and they didn't seem to be making a fuss about the Grijalva sign.10/27/2006 08:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Geo|W|P|I sometimes wonder if people who make logical fallacies in their arguments are just not able to tell when they do it, or if they know, but don't really care. I'm not sure which would be worse.

Anyway, Guard, you just made three of them in one paragraph. If you're interested, they're:

Tu quoque
Biased Sample
Argument from Ignorance

You know, for whatever that's worth.10/27/2006 09:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Garrett O'Hara|W|P|I didn't think the "American name" thing was appropriate, but supporting illegal immigration and the Aztlan/MEChA deal as a whole certainly justifies such a sign. Comparing this to the time when the CR's called off a protest of the Cesar Chavez building renaming ceremony (out of fear of losing the election), it's very nice to see they have balls now.10/27/2006 10:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|You're right, the Bush=Hitler signs are stupid, offensive and peurile. However, you would be hard pressed to find a Democratic candidate sanctioning the carrying of those signs. In fact, you'll find many of these people consider the entire Democratic ticket sell-outs.10/28/2006 12:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger ej|W|P|ED SAID Having a Hispanic name as you state does not make you any less of a American. Having the name Raul Grijalva along with the mind set of a third world anti-American approach to most matters does. Being Raul is a citizen and can not be deported, is it alright just hang him10/28/2006 12:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|tedski,
If this were my blog I would delete the comment by "ej." Maybe you should bar klansmen and their sympathizers from writing here.

You decide.10/28/2006 04:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 206isCancer.com|W|P|Liza-

Hanging is the proper punishment for treason. And there are many who have valid reasons to believe the R “owl” Grijalva has committed treason on many occasions. He supports and is a member of groups that are working to reclaim the southwestern United States for Mexico. A regular citizen can’t even do that without having serious charges of treason leveled. And Grijalva is in Congress.

ej didn’t say anything about lynching or whatever you seem to assume makes him a klansman or one of their sympathizers. Just like when I have said in the past and repeat here that John Kerry should have been hung for treason long ago, that was not the comment of a Klansman or supporting their sick form of torture and murder of people who have committed no crime, except being born the wrong color in the mindset of twisted racists. Hanging is the proper punishment for the crimes that Kerry has committed. Just like lethal injection or the electric chair would be proper punishments for the other Senator from Massachusetts who committed murder and got away with it, although I'm not sure if they had the death penalty where Ted Kennedy murdered that poor girl at the time of the crime or that the statute of limitations has not passed.10/28/2006 06:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Hey - how come nobody is focusing on the real issue here. The blatantly RACIST anti Italian video Ted linked to!

You know Tedski, the T in Mister T is for TONY and I won't put up with you sanctioning such discrimination.

Oh -- and to these other people posting here about how horrible Grijalva is ....




You make me laugh. Invite me to your next flag burning will you? I'm sure the flames will illuminate your hateful faces JUST ENOUGH for the snap shot I'd love to take to shame you in the eyes of REAL americans.

You know the kind that are respectful of others, regardless fo their race, religion etc.10/28/2006 08:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|ej/206,

Your comments reveal you both for the contemptible anti-American fascist vermin that you are…10/28/2006 09:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|206ISCANCER.COM--What groups does Raul Grijalva belong to which are working to return the southwest U.S. to Mexico? Are you talking figuratively or legally or both regarding this reclamation?10/29/2006 08:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|ej and 206,
You are both full of racist trash talk and stupid lies that are disseminated by the hate culture that align yourselves with. I have only question for you. Are you using the 400 thread count for your sheets? It drapes better than the 200.10/29/2006 10:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Treason? Holy smokes. If this is treason, what is lying about the reasons for a war?10/29/2006 11:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|kralmajales,
I believe the international community would call it a "war crime."10/29/2006 01:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|206,
Here's a little story straight from the 10-11-2006 news headlines although I'm sure it wasn't reported on fair and balanced Fox news:

"A new medical study says the number of Iraqi deaths since the US-led invasion has reached more than 655,000. The study was carried out by many of the same researchers behind the Johns Hopkins University survey that put the death toll at 100,000 two years ago. Researchers based their findings on interviews with a random sampling of households taken in clusters across Iraq. The newest survey yielded the same estimate of immediate post-invasion deaths as the first one. Attacks from US-led coalition forces accounted for thirty percent of the reported deaths. The actual number of dead could be higher. The 655,000 figure represents an estimate of “excess deaths” – people who wouldn’t have died had the US not invaded.

The study is already coming under criticism. Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic & International Studies said the researchers were playing politics ahead of the November mid-term elections. In response, University of Michigan professor and Middle East scholar Juan Cole wrote: “Is he saying that 18,000 households from all over Iraq conspired to lie to Johns Hopkins University researchers for the purpose of defeating Republicans in US elections this November?”"

You may not be aware of this, but statisticians have developed methods to estimate the number of people killed in wars, epidemics and other situations where an accurate body count is not available. Those time honored statistical methods have been used on both occasions where there has been a study to estimate the number of Iraqis killed as a result of the 2003 US invasion.

Of course, there were so many good reasons for all those people to die:

1. Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that he is going to use against the US at any moment.
2. SH is linked to Al Qaeda.
3. SH is linked to 9-11.
4. SH is a really bad guy.

As you weep for the unfortunate young woman who drowned while she was with Ted Kennedy, perhaps you could find it within yourself to feel something for the 650K Iraqis who were unfortunate enough to be born on top of all of our oil.
Oh, yes, and such a strategic location for our permanent military bases that have been built by Halliburton and their subsidiaries.

Empire, hegemony, and oil is what these people were killed for. You want to talk about treason? What a laugh. What a f****** laugh. Go back to your stupid little right wing talk radio world where stupid little people agree with you.10/29/2006 08:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Joe|W|P|this kind of stuff makes me wish for a simpler time in Arizona politics, a time in which we as a state elected politicians with names like Raul Castro10/30/2006 08:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|joe,
I find myself wising for a simpler time almost everyday. Sorry, pal, neither of us are going to get it. Maybe some of the comments on this thread illuminate what we are up against.

We live in serious times.10/30/2006 09:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|why haven't there been any "Deport Pederson," "Deport Giffords," "Deport Napolitano," or "Deport Flake" for that matter?

Because they can't find any Indians with enough time on their hands to stand on a corner with those signs all day?10/27/2006 03:13:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In the Arizona Province of Blogistan, a few of us have formed a confederation of sorts and are using the ActBlue service to raise money for some of our candidates. You will see an easy way to contribute on the right hand column. Those of us participating are Wactivist, LoftyDonkey, AzNetroots, and Geo's Precinct. Each blog is sponsoring a candidate. Guess who I am sponsoring? If you'd like a little more information, you can check the ActBlue page that Tony Cani set up. He can be contacted through that page if you'd like another candidate added.|W|P|116198754386852130|W|P|Arizona "NetRoots" (ack) Fundraising Push|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/27/2006 03:06:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Did anyone catch that endorsement of Harry Mitchell in this morning's Republic? They called him a "bully." In the headline even. Gawd, just how bad did act during the interview? I have been reading these endorsements for a long time, and I have never seen the behavior of a candidate commented on in an endorsement. I guess he just acted like a jerk to one too many people this time.|W|P|116198708378924352|W|P|I Love the Republic|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/27/2006 05:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I admit I laughed at the editorial.10/27/2006 02:43:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Yesterday's Republic featured a story on the controversey that implied that the whole thing was a dirty trick from the Ellen Simon campaign. Never mind that this has been investigated for months, they asked Renzi and his lawyer, former Attorney General Grant Woods, and they assured the Republic that this is being done at the behest of Simon. We know this because the FBI often opens investigations based on complaints from campaigns. Case closed. The New York Times, the Washington Post and even the New Times have all been able to find some serious problems with this deal (I doubt that the Post even knows who Ellen Simon is), why does the Republic continue to pretend that nothing is going on but election year politics? NB - The folks that gave me this story were not with Ellen Simon's campaign, and I don't know anyone that works for her.|W|P|116198674296709899|W|P|I Hate the Republic|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/27/2006 05:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Garrett O'Hara|W|P|Sounds like everybody on both sides hates the Republic. That can't bode well for them.10/27/2006 06:46:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Sex-columnist and gay activist Dan Savage has suggested an ad for Check it out, it does contain some profanity though. Not the ad, but Savage's accompanying comments. I met Ford at an airport last year when I was coming back from MLS Cup. He was with . The funny thing is, Obama was the big celebrity, and Ford was just the guy with him. You could tell that Ford was a bit irritated that I was more enthralled with meeting Obama. Obama, being the only African American Senator, is seen as an important leader and even a possible presidential candidate. But, if Ford wins this, geez. If y'all remember, Obama's first opponent, Jack Ryan, had both an unfortunate last name (the same as the embattled governor) and was hounded out of the race for, it seems, having consentual sex with his wife (maybe Savage has a point). He was replaced by Alan Keyes, who wasn't even from Illinois and came off as a wack job. Illinois had also recently elected another African American Senator. Ford will be winning in a Southern state that didn't even elect an African American Senator during Reconstruction. He will be winning in a tough campaign that many people didn't give him too much of a chance in a couple of months ago. Ford's views on many issues probably keeps him from being too exciting to liberal activists, but he would be given his props as a giant-killer and pioneer.|W|P|116195823370056956|W|P|Dan Savage's Advice for Harold Ford Jr.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/27/2006 08:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|There is a really interesting story on Washingtonpost.com this morning about negative (over the top) ads being used by mainly Republicans. You should definitely read it and read about the RNC ad they ran against Ford...and then pulled.

Pretty disgusting and pretty racist.

Oh..and also read about the ad against one democrat for calling sex lines (the line was called once and the line was one digit off a major line that the staffer called all the time).10/27/2006 02:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The Republicans seem to be obsessed with sex. Wonder why?10/26/2006 09:41:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|On the way out of tonight's CD 8 debate at Flowing Wells high school, I spied an older Hispanic gentleman with a sign that said "Latinos for Graf." Another man came up to him and said, "I see you are all by yourself there." A better summary of Hispanic sentiment might be from a piece of a cell phone conversation I heard a few minutes later, just three words: "puto, Graf culo." In Randy Graf's opening statement, he protested that Gabrielle Giffords was claiming that he was for abolishing medicare, privatizing social security and outlawing stem cell research. There is a darned good reason why she claims that. Because Graf has said those things. Back in 2004, this is what he told the Arizona Daily Star:

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.

He told the National Taxpayers Union in their candidate survey that he supported Social Security privatization. This is from his answer in their survey:
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.
Graf voiced his opposition to federal funding of stem-cell research as recently as August in an article about the issue in the Tucson Weekly.
"It's not eliminating embryonic stem-cell research," Graf says. "It's just making sure that taxpayer dollars are not going into it."
Let me get this right: when Graf himself declares these positions, it makes him a man of principles. When Giffords points out that he has those positions, it is a distortion. Let me take some time to wrap my head around that and I'll get back to you.|W|P|116192537962425090|W|P|CD 8 Debate Report: Principles Above Politics Except When Those Principles Don't Poll Well|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/26/2006 10:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 01:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Graf can't run from his extremist record.

Neither can Kyl...people are starting to see that as well.10/27/2006 11:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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 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.com10/26/2006 10:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Squib aka TwistedOreo|W|P|That last paragraph really explains a helluva lot about Arizona politics.10/27/2006 12:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The question is, is it true? Because I have always disliked Wyatt Earp and never been able to say why.10/27/2006 01:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Interesting post...thanks.

I like Jennifer Burns a lot. Smart and very very moderate.

That said, control of the House...evening out committees...is very important.

The only thing I don't like about the post is the references to keeping Republicans from getting a veto proof majority. How about a "glass half full" way of stating it? Shouldn't we talk about dems picking up seats...taking back the state legislature...instead of defeated rhetoric like preventing a veto proof majority?

I know that districting benefits Republican incumbents here, but so does the federal districts drawn here...and what are we seeing? High enough potential turnout among dems and independents to stunt that advantage.

Shouldn't dems gain seat in this election if in ANY? IF not, WTF?????

I am being picky about the language, I know, Ted...and you know the state better than me...but if dems are ever going to shake up the state...they have to at least believe they can win. If they don't, no one else will.10/27/2006 10:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|The best analysis of the politics behind the OK Corral and other similar incidents in the 19th Century West is in Richard Maxwell Brown's "No Duty To Retreat." It should be available in most respectable academic libraries and ASU's as well.10/28/2006 11:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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.com10/26/2006 08:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|The real problem for the Repubicans is that most of us in Baja Arizona know and really like and appreciate our "brown" neighbors. We know how this country came to be what it is over the generations, and we understand without a doubt why the Old Pueblo is better than Mesa and Scottsdale.10/26/2006 10:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 206isCancer.com|W|P|No Tedski-

We are yet to see the poll, but if there is a problem with the poll, it will be because they don't release the information on the specifics of the polling sample. As I've said many times before, if you don't list information on the polling sample, then the poll itself has NO VALIDITY. I really do hope that Zimmerman releases the internals on the sample. What was the percentage of Republicans, percentage of Dems, and percentage of Independents? How many women and how many men? What percentage comes from Pima County and how many from Cochise, Santa Cruz, and Pinal? If the poll says for instance that Randy has support from 38.2 % of likely voters, but we find out that Zimmerman’s total sample included 50 % Dems, 35% Independents, and 15 % Republicans, we will know that the poll is invalid, because the numbers don’t match the actual District. But if Randy Graf is really behind, then we would need to know the internals to see the proof. Dems have tried to complain about Republicans stealing elections recently. If they don’t release the info on the polling sample, I could easily accuse Zimmerman of “stealing the poll” to coin a new phrase. Info on polling sample is the only way to know if you have a valid poll. Hopefully, we’ll find out at 10 o’clock tonight whether that’s the case or not.10/26/2006 10:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|Or 206,

You might check out the KVOA website, or read the Star.

What is absolutely clear is that Randy Graf is going to attract about 35-38% of the vote in CD-8, assuming his supporters will come out to vote for a loser.

Sheesh. Look at every poll by every pollster of whatever persuasion over the last 10 months.10/27/2006 01:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I am beginning to think that this race is going to have an effect on the Pederson/Kyl race.

If Giffords is leading by this much in a Republican advantaged district, then it might have some impact on Pederson's vote as well.

Again, might Republican turnout slip and if it does here (in a Republican leaning area), what might this mean for the state-wide race?

I am betting Dems vote dem on both.

We might see Republican vote Kyl and then ease away and vote for Giffords...but if turnout is low in CD 8 among republicans...even that might not matter.

Independents...could show up in higher numbers than normal in this midterm. If so, national polls show them angry and trending 2-1 to demos.

Again, I wonder what the Giffords numbers might say about Pederson.10/27/2006 08:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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?10/28/2006 11:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 206isCancer.com|W|P|After fully analyzing the polling data, I’ve realized that I was wrong, and that Zimmerman’s poll is completely without fault. NOT! In regard to Randy Graf’s chances, even though, Zimmerman’s skewed polling shows differently, Randy, is in great position. First, Zimmerman is a Dem hack for a pollster. Just like I suspected, Zimmerman did not release the necessary internals on the polling sample. We have no way of knowing if her poll is even close to following the make-up of the district. We need to know the party breakdown, the male-female breakdown, and the county-by-county breakdowns. Without these details, her poll is basically worthless. If I polled everybody working in Graf HQ, I’m sure that Randy would have 100% of the vote of these likely voters, including 100% of the female vote, 100% of the Jewish vote, and 100% of the Hispanic vote. But that poll would be flawed - even if it’s just barely flawed ;) - because it would not reflect the actual make-up of the actual district.

Randy has the 5% and 20,000 voter registration advantage. Republicans in CD8 have also requested 5000 more early ballots than Democrats. Statewide, the Republican early ballot advantage is closer to 100,000. So, Dems must be worried. And the sleeping giant of this election cycle for Republicans is PMA (Protect Marriage Arizona), Prop 107, the ban on gay marriage. Churches throughout the state are exhorting their membership to get out and vote and make sure that the ban on gay marriage and civil unions passes. This is an army of single-issue voters who have the potential of putting many like-minded Republicans over the top.

If you guys start crying on Election Day, after it is clear that Graf will win, I promise that I will buy a few of you tissue boxes to help wipe away the tears.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|Blogger 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 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 08:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Maybe the Republic waited so they would not print misleading information like “is sitting on the indictment until after the election” that was in your October 22nd story.10/25/2006 08:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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 10:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|The Arizona Republic

You report. We decide.10/25/2006 01:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger David Schlosser|W|P|David Schlosser, the Libertarian candidate for Arizona’s first district in the U.S. House of Representatives, today made the following statement regarding news reports of two separate Federal investigations into the political and business activities of incumbent Republican Congressman Rick Renzi.

“Americans deserve a higher standard from their elected representatives than ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Voters disgusted by the corrupting influence of money, politics, and special interests in Congress have a real choice in Arizona’s First District.

“By choosing the change and leadership represented by my commitments to smaller and limited government, simpler and fairer taxes, term limits, donating special-interest contributions to charity, and rejecting Congressional raises until we balance the Federal budget, voters can send a clear message that they no longer tolerate politics as usual.

“Reports of Federal investigations into Congressman Renzi’s business and political activities demonstrate the importance of informed voting. Congressman Renzi has refused to engage his constituents in public events during this election. Perhaps he will reconsider his contemptuous refusal to debate now that the Department of Justice is asking the same kind of questions as his constituents.”10/25/2006 03:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|Maybe Phx kid should start his own blog and show us all how to do it.10/25/2006 04:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger azdemwatchdog|W|P|PhxKid,

The land deal was a story before the federal review, but the Republic didn't cover it, even though the New Times had a very detailed piece. Two weeks later, it is a matter of record that the feds are looking into it, and numerous print sources have covered it, including the Washington Post. Are you really going to defend the Republic when it has yet to mention a story that has appearned in the Washington Post?

azdemwatchdog10/25/2006 05:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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.10/25/2006 11:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|You are all making my case for me. From the sounds of it there are so many things going on at the same time the Republic was trying to sort out one investigation from another before printing anything. Touché.10/26/2006 01:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 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 08:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|It is so Tedski that you read this girls blog.

I say that with much affection.10/25/2006 09:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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.10/25/2006 09:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mexilina|W|P|O'Bama O'8!! I adore him!! and Elizabeth, maybe you haven't heard him speak.. I was fortunate enough to, and can I just say? He is dynamic, knowledgeable, just Fantastic!

Having said that, I'm still upset with him for voting for the wall on the border. How could he? GRRRR I won't speak to him, I won't..

Err..but I'll be voting for him in '08.. Darn that Confirmation Bias!10/26/2006 08:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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 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.com10/24/2006 08:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|These polls are very interesting. On October 17th NAU released a poll saying that Prop 107 had 44% strong support and 33% strong opposed. Now ASU says that only 30% support 107 and 56% oppose it. One of our universities does not know how to poll.10/25/2006 07:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger fafctt1|W|P|i will go with the better university, and my own straw poll of friends around the state. this prop is going down, as is kyl. i am a conservative in the true sense, and i am doing everything i can to defeat kyl, the bootlicker of bush. he is not our rep, he is W's rep in the senate. HAD ENOUGH, VOTE AGAINST KYL, THE RUBBER STAMP.10/26/2006 05:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 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 07:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|Rick is a dirty bird...10/25/2006 03:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger azdemwatchdog|W|P|U.S. Attorney Charlton is susceptible to Republican political pressure. The key point to understanding his conduct is that his ambition is to be a federal judge, and his goal absolutely requires the strong support of Senator Jon Kyl, a key member of the judiciary committee. It should not be a surprise that Charlton is slowing the Renzi investigation to help the Republicans in the election, since he has a history of such conduct at Kyl's request.

Charlton's handling of the District 20 investigation is one example. Individuals associated with AG Goddard asked Charlton to investigate the suspicious District 20 recount. As a result, Charlton's office began an investigation, which included seizing the ballots with a grand jury subpoena. Remember how Skip Rimza began a campaign for Secretary of State against Brewer? The reason was that Charlton's office told Rimza's circle that it expected the investigation would bring down Brewer. Brewer panicked over Rimza's primary challenge and Charlton's seizure of the ballots, and she asked Kyl to intervene on her behalf. Kyl asked Charlton to hold off on an investigation to shut down the fever pitch surrounding voting practices in Arizona and her mishandling of that recount. After Kyl's intervention, Charlton's office told Rimza that there would be no investigation, and Rimza stopped his campaign for Secretary of State. That's why Rimza didn't run even though he had already collected petition signatures and, even more, put up his signs. (My source on this is someone in the Rimza inner circle.)

The bottom line is that pursuing Renzi at this point could cost the Republicans a Congressional seat in a tight election year, and Kyl used his influence with Charlton to protect his fellow member of Congress, Renzi. It wouldn't be the first time Republicans played politics with criminal justice.10/25/2006 05:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 . 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 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 05:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Mayor Phil Gordon (who I like to call Fairweather Phil) endorsed Republican Weiers in 2006, he endorsed Republican Andy Thomas in 2004.

Who is next, Ron Gould?

Phil Gordon has endorsed two of the most blatantly racist candidates in the past two years ... why??

Don't forget, he already has endorsed John McCain for President in 2008, and was rumored to be getting his staff ready early this summer to come out and strike a major blow agaist prop 107 opponents (until it was leaked on this blog).

Also - why hasn't he been as eager to endorse Democratic Candidates? I haven't looked this up - but are there any current Democrats running for office (especially in races that share his constiuents) that he has NOT endorsed - or only endorsed AFTER Wieirs?

I don't know the answer to either of those questions - but I think you know what I'm getting at. I will say this though - if Fairweather Phil thinks that Democratic Activists don't have a long memory about these types of slaps in the face during partisan primaries - then maybe he should call up Ted Downing and ask him to share a Starbucks with him.

If Gordon runs for higher office and faces a primary opponent - you can add me to a list of people who will vocally stand in opposition to his candidacy.

Is it a bad idea to say this out loud? Does it make me a disloyal Democrat? I say HELL NO. Gordon's people calling ME a disloyal Democrat for calling him out for his selective "bi-partisanship" is like President Bush calling John Kerry a draft dodger.

Remember this is a guy who is so eager to play both sides that he attempts to protray a crafted though visibly SLIMY and disengenuouss image of "partisan cooperation" by displaying a portrait of both Bush AND Clinton in his office. This wouldn't bother me in the least, if it wasn't so transparently done on purpose to create some image.

I wonder - with Bush in the low 40s in AZ, think Phil took that portrait down? Free beer (or soda) to whoever finds out first.

Ugh, this guy makes my skin crawl.10/24/2006 05:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger NorAZ Democrat|W|P|Agreed. Gordon's actions within the past few weeks, esp. with the Weiers endorsement, just reek of political opportunism.

If the Repubs gain the veto-proof majority, i doubt any Democrat that's paying attention will let Phil Gordon forget this.10/25/2006 10:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Do you people really think Phil is thinking that far ahead or is he just doing the best he can to ensure positive treatment for his city with a state legislature that is increasingly hostile (espeically when it comes to tax revenues) to municipalities and their interests?10/25/2006 05:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Bored -

If that is the case, then why hasn't he endorsed others? Where is he on the Senate leadership? County Board of Supervisors?

That isn't what this is about ... why would he endorse ANDY THOMAS in 2004 with your logic?10/27/2006 05:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Because he was mesmerized by the mustache.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2006/10/23/daily42.html?f=et73&hbx=e_du10/28/2006 06:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Bored,

Ever wonder why he endorsed Pederson when he did??? AFTER the whole Wieiers thing?

We call that political cover.10/24/2006 06:17:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Republicans all over the country are saying the phrase "Dennis who?" when it comes to . Candidates like in Kentucky and Shelley Sekula Gibbs in Texas have said "no thanks" to a Hastert appearance in their, yes, Republican districts. Even , 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|Blogger Lae|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.10/24/2006 03:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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.10/24/2006 05:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|I would say this will be the final nail in Graf's coffin. Just in time for Halloween!

Welcome to Tucson Fat Bastard!10/25/2006 01:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 , for example. So far, her campaign has made Stuart Starky's odd suicide mission against 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 . 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.com10/23/2006 10:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Even a rabid conservative like me has to admit that Tedski has a point. When you click on the link provided you see AZ CD 8 as leans democrat. But if you click on Arizona you get some details. Go down to CD 8 and what you read is neither up to date nor insightful.

Sabato claims to send out e-mail updates. I am not a subscriber so I have not read them. I do not know if any of Sabato’s messages
on CD 8 were more recent than the June29th analysis on the web site.

Either way from the web site alone it looks like Sabato is not paying much attention to CD 8. Hard to put much stake in anything he says based on the information available.10/22/2006 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 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|Blogger Michael|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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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 03:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|If this is true, it looks like one carpetbagger's political career is over... and is replaced with a carpetbagger who hasn't traveled as far (VA v. OH). An improvement, sure, but still a look way to go.


I'm with Michael. I seriously doubt there is much if any truth to this. If Charlton is sitting on an indictment, he's going to have speedy trial problems. I don't give much credence to Charlton being a Bush appointee meaning he is doing Dubya's partisan bidding. To do so would require the same assumption about his predecessor Janet, n'est pas? Unlike Janet and Jose whathisname, Charlton was a non-pol career AUSA before being promoted to the top job. It may just be my own personal bias, but I put more faith in the career prosecutors than the pols10/23/2006 09:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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.10/24/2006 08:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|FYI - according to this rumor an indictment has already been issued which means the clock is already ticking unless the feds have already obtained an agreement from Renzi to waive that right. That's why Michael said a prosecutor can't just sit on an indictment.

But I can see where you would be confused Chris since the rumor - as posted by lofty donkey - is inconsistent and remains unsourced.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 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|Blogger 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 10:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|If you missed the U.S. Senate debate on KUAT you can just watch it online.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 09:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|Given that our family has had close ties with the Araiza family since the early 20th Century, you should at least learn how to spell the name.10/23/2006 10:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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 . Obviously, they haven't abandoned Harry Mitchell.
|W|P|116143284426020703|W|P|You Wanted Evidence?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/21/2006 02:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|I think the DCCC may be overetimating the weight which the Udall name carries in John Rhodes's district. But what the hell, we can apreciate the sentiment; and it's not as if anyone in the national Dem. party has a subtle enough understanding of the state to know Arizona from Aardvark anyway.

They're beginning to take a serious interest in Colorado, so maybe we'll be next.10/21/2006 03:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sonoranturtle|W|P|on the other hand, the nationally minded folk over at DCCC were smart enough to torpdeo Huffman in the CD-08's GOP primary.

they're learning?10/21/2006 11:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|hmm, good point sonoranturtle.

Do you think then that one might surmise this ad was first created for CD-8, where it appears to be unneeded, and in a savings move has been recycled for CD-5, where it lacks deep Arizona resonance, but makes the stem-cell case pretty well?

Gosh, a great and devastating ad could have been made of clips where Barry Goldwater could condemn everything Hayworth stands for.10/23/2006 03:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Who's Morris Udall?10/23/2006 06:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 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|Blogger 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|Blogger cpmaz|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. :)10/20/2006 11:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger NetrootsDemocrat|W|P|The numbers trend doesn't look good for JD. He's in deep trouble. If this wave is as big as some are thinking, he goes along with possibly Renzi and Kyl.

All three are still UNDER fifty percent.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 . 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 07:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sonoranturtle|W|P|well, so Arizona 8th and Blog for Arizona are reading off the same cribsheets. I guess that the old saying is true--left and right really do come together off at the margins.

but mike bryan is really endangering his cred with this stuff... if he keeps it up, he might stop being Dwight Leister's favorite blog.10/19/2006 08:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 08:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger slim|W|P|Come on Tedski - KUAT? Bill Buckmaster? You know those commies have a liberal agenda and are just covering up for their defeatocrat masters.

And Drake really should be congratulated for his accomplishment. How hard is it to lose your own push-poll? It's hard work!10/19/2006 08:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|666 Ted! Think about it, totally a sign that Republicans are all satanists!


Just probably a coincidence about the double sixes.10/19/2006 10:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|turtle,

At least give Michael Bryan credit for immediately ridiculing the insinuation that wire theft at Pima Dems HQ was a Republican dirty tricks, and calling on PHX Dem flunkies to cut tht out.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 01:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|Am I really the first one to suggest a Draft Patty Weiss for Mayor Movement?10/19/2006 02:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|No...that would be Art Jacobsen.10/19/2006 02:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Hmmmm that is interested. The Weiss for mayor possibility. I'm not sure if I would prefer someone who knows a ton about the inner workings of city and county government issues (eg., Leal, Ibarra) or if I wanted someone who doesn't (Weiss).

The reality of this move by Walkup, however, is a very probable win by him. Unless the record is more tarnished than I believe, he has shown himself to be likeable and moderate.

Last, is Mayor a big enough stage for Patty Weiss...really?10/19/2006 02:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|And another thing...

How would Weiss do in a primary versus a Leal or Ibarra. Both known inside party circles, both likely to draw committed Democrat voters that turn out in primaries.

Although, Patty's endorsement of Giffords was a start. If she is considering this at all, I am betting you should be seeing her at a lot of Demo meetings, making friends, helping candidates to win, throwing support (financial and volunteer) behind candidates, etc.

If she is not doing this, remember this...name recognition is NOT enough to win a primary.10/19/2006 04:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|Steve Leal has earned his shot in a race for Mayor. He is diligent, well-informed, and extraordinarily knowledgeable about municipal governance in theory and practice, and about Tucson and its municipal governance in particular. He is responsive to constituents, and he has backbone.

Also, after the go-around for mayor, I think it's highly unlikely he'll accept efforts to elbow him out in the early phases of the campaign.10/19/2006 05:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 11:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|What are Ibarra's accomplishments? What qualifies him to be mayor? Doesn't he still have that money "loss" from his office hanging over him OR has that issue already been dealt with?

Is this the best Tucson has to offer for its highest position?

Is there anyone out there who wants to run who has intelligence, reasonableness, a positive vision, creative-thinking abilities, strong work ethic AND the guts to be honest about Tucson's fiscal situation?10/20/2006 06:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Ok...I need education...

Why would Bob Walkup be a bad choice to stay as mayor?


Roger10/19/2006 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, 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|Blogger Garrett O'Hara|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 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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 , 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 08:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Unbelievable! Where do the Republicans dig up these relics?

Those folks who wrongly declared Arizona the dumbest state must have been taking a hard look at these guys.10/19/2006 09:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|not surprising, but funny to see Wonkette getting in on this action. (Why should Kitty Harris get all the attention?)

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/jd-hayworth/jd-hayworth-continues-his-christkiller-outreach-program-208736.php10/19/2006 05:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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 07:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|Hey maybe we could have Mark Foley check just how Jewish and or Mormon he is. But then that would be gay.10/20/2006 09:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Dude|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 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 01:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|Cheney is definitely Gollum crawling out of his hole to make sure "Precious" is within his grasp.

Precious being his Halliburton stock options.

Unprincipled, vile, disgusting, ugly, hateful, slimy, murderous Cheney.

Anyone have a better description?

Rove, is the Eye! Always watching! Manipulating!

Mehlman, Grima Wormtongue, groveling little snit!10/18/2006 05:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger OVD|W|P|There guys have established a new level of spin.10/18/2006 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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:


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|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|The link I pasted above did not copy completely. Let's try this smaller one:


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 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 10:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Sorry, I didn’t see the debate but Gabby must have done poorly if this is all you have.10/17/2006 11:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 08:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|On the Pearce issue, this is fascinating. The fact that he stated this in the debate and that he placed his name back on the endorsement list raises questions.

First, why would he do this? This move clearly only appeals to the extreme base of the party. It does not thing for Republican moderates or those who are considering sitting this one out. It definitely does not attract minorities, independents, or women (which Randy MUST do well with to win).

I can only conclude that he is concerned about his base even voting on this one. Possibly not even about him but the national mood and doldrums of republicans that might lead to lower turnout.

Fascinating indeed.10/18/2006 01:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 |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.com10/17/2006 08:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Don’t worry Ted, our side does the same thing for some of your candidates.10/17/2006 05:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|Phx Kid makes a good point, just not the one that he thinks he is making.

Check out the list of "Republicans for Janet." If there is a single elected official on there, it certainly isn't someone I recognize. In fact, I see almost no names I recognize, and the ones that do look familiar only elicit a "I think I have heard that name before" sort of reaction.

For all the Republican complaints about RINOs, the fact is that the mugwumps remain loyal to the party regardless of how troubled they are by the direction things may be going. A few of my GOP coleagues in the House have told me that they are voting for Ms. Napolitano, but you do not see any of them coming out and endorsing her publicly.

In contrast, we Democrats jump ship all the time, often for shallow reasons. None of the Democrats cited here are from the "conservative" wing of our party, so this act of going over the hill has little to do with ideology. If it did, I might have some respect for it.

These folks should ask themselves what exactly they are gaining for their constituents by selling out like this.10/16/2006 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 and . 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 only had two more votes in his conference, he would have this 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 09:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|1899 or 1499?10/16/2006 10:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I was thinking more like 1214, pre-Magna Carta.10/16/2006 12:46:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I was feeling queasy from my spinach pasta and that just made it worse Eli.10/16/2006 07:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Erik|W|P|Everyone needs a dose of comedy every once in a while.

thanks tedski10/16/2006 05:43:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Jim Pederson - 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|Blogger 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.10/17/2006 07:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|At the Tempe Forum last month the Libertarians were hitting Kyl (Andy Chasin stood in for him)on civil liberty issues, immigration, phony War on Drugs, phony War on terror, etc.

The biggest applause lines were Libertarians hitting Bush and the GOP.

That's why he's nervous. Libertarians message, "I don't trust either R's or D's" but most people distrust the GOP and lately stand with the Dems on social issues. So when the L's start attacking SS, Medicare, and stand with deregulation of corporations, most people stop cheering and realize the Dems are the best choice.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 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 . The conservative bloggers can keep wishing though.|W|P|116088029074379052|W|P|Um, Not Quite|W|P|prezelski@aol.com10/16/2006 05:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|Tedski --

This is a particularly interesting post, which cries out for expansion, verification by source, etc. I want to believe, but somehow I don't.

So an easy one, can you confirm that Emanuel was in CD-5 last week raising money, plannng tactics, or whatever he does?

Or what else can you add to give this good news weight?10/16/2006 05:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|Tedski --

This is a particularly interesting post, which cries out for expansion, verification by source, etc. I want to believe, but somehow I don't.

So an easy one, can you confirm that Emanuel was in CD-5 last week raising money, plannng tactics, or whatever he does?

Or what else can you add to give this good news weight?10/17/2006 07:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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 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|Blogger 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| 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Michael|W|P|Shades of insane?10/15/2006 06:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Russell Pearce has been among the leaders in trying to dismantle Arizona's Merit Selection system...why?...because some of them believe that elections would get their crony, conservative, would-be judges on the bench.

After this election, look for call for judicial elections to go by the wayside. I don't think they really want Democrats to be choosing the judges.

OH...and Michael is all over it. Randy's own campaign manager notes that Randy has the base, but needs to appeal to moderates in the party. He has to hope for high republican turnout for Kyl (Munsil ain't drawin' em out) and that the moderates will not split their votes to Giffords after voting for Kyl. I, by the way, think this is a Tall tall order for Graf to achieve.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.com10/13/2006 09:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Ted, if you look real hard you will notice that Al Melvin is wearing a Naval uniform. There are not a lot of Colonels in the Navy. The proper term is Captain Al Melvin.10/13/2006 11:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Actually its not even a Naval uniform. Its a Merchant Marine uniform. Get it right Phx Kid... drastic difference.10/14/2006 07:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Still an O6...I don't know what the heck I was thinking.

It's fixed.10/14/2006 02:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Anonymous, I had trouble telling from the photo if it was a Naval or Merchant Marine uniform so I asked the Captain in person today.

It is a U.S. Navy Officer’s uniform. Al served in the U.S. Naval Reserves for many years and was wearing his Naval uniform in the photo posted by Tedski.

You might want to check your facts before getting all snarky.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 07:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Oh, that’s so sad that little Jimmy is getting picked on.

How does the saying go, if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. Anyway Jim can give as well as he gets. Pederson’s abortion ad is a total fabrication.10/13/2006 08:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger DRP|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 09:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Pederson is a nutcase who hates unborn babies.10/13/2006 09:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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 10:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I do not support sex ed in the public schools because it is not part of the core function of a school and has more to do with social engineering. Maybe in high school there could be an elective class in human sexuality. But if you want to keep driving evangelicals and Catholics to set up a completely separate and private system of schools please keep forcing your sex ed programs on families who do not want it.

Birth control is legal and readily available, just visit the personal care section of most stores in the area and you too can purchase some condoms over the counter.

Not quite sure exactly what family planning entails.10/13/2006 03:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger redcardphreek|W|P|Well the pundit will not allow any sort of discussion on his blog as occurs here with Phx_Kid throwing out the right winger views.

Maybe he is scared?

Neither Kyl nor Pederson are nutcases, Pederson is more in line with Arizona though.10/13/2006 03:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Since we're completely off the original topic of this post, may I just say that I'd like to beat the holy hell out of every nutcase who is turning this page mess into a homosexual witch hunt?


Thank you. I return you to your regularly scheduled abortion debate.10/13/2006 06:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger WestPhoenix|W|P|Silly, RRR, tricks are for kids. And CAIR is for Hamas.


"...as CAIR has been linked to convicted terrorists, terrorist acts and terrorist groups overseas. CAIR was incorporated in June of 1994 by three leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a Hamas front co-founded by the number two leader in Hamas today, Mousa Abu Marzook. Two of CAIR's former representatives are currently serving jail time for conducting terrorist activities with groups connected to Hamas and Al-Qaeda. And CAIR is currently the defendant in a lawsuit for the murder of an FBI Agent who was killed during the 9/11 attacks."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 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.com10/13/2006 07:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|"Who the heck saw this coming?"

Exactly. If these numbers are accurrate it means a tidal wave is coming...seriously. In a midterm election, a race like the open 8th or the Mitchell-Hayworth race might be competitive...good candidates, enough money for the challenger. However, when these types of numbers show up in what are "safe" Republican districts it means HUGE trouble for Republicans.

Republicans are not energized and many will not turn out in a midterm race where turnout is lower anyway. Democrats are energized (remember my statements last spring about them crawling over class to vote?).

The potential effect of this is pick ups in races that people never thought would turn. It could also dip very very deeply into local races as well. So watch out and watch those legislative races.10/13/2006 09:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|I would like to point out that I think that they Failed to call Dixie Zummwalt. I mean there is really no better authority on Greenley county politics than Dixie.10/12/2006 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 10:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Too bad Russell Pearce didn’t just go speak to an anti-Israel organization with ties to terrorist groups around the time of September 11th. If he had he would have gotten a complete pass but only if he was from a different political party.10/12/2006 03:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Huge mistake on Foghorn's part. The people he was trying to placate with that statement don't believe him for a minute and the people who supported him (and Pearce) are ticked that he hung Pearce out to dry to 'pander to the libs.'

D'oh!10/12/2006 05:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|One can only hope that boredinaz is correct! It wouldn't be the first time. :-)10/12/2006 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|Blogger 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 11:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I agree with Framer on this one. Although I don't agree with him on everything, when Warner ran for governer he was able to craft a winning Democrat coalition from the predominantly suburban area of N. Virginia, the predominantly African-American areas of the state, and the final amazing piece of Western (Appalachia) Virginia.

I have long been arguing that Democrats need to study what went wrong over the years in the Appalachian region of the country. Think about it, West PA, S. East Ohio, W.V., West Carolina, Western Virginia, all were Democratic strongholds and now have voted Republican over the years.

Democrats like Robert Byrd, Gov. Manchin, and the Mark Warner's of the world can appeal to real people and engage them without looking totally elitist and out of place. They fit and the listen. The Gores, Kerry's and Hilary's of the world just do NOT fit, come across as arrogant, aloof, and a host of other things.10/12/2006 12:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger redcardphreek|W|P|Bummer,

He was the guy I was looking at the most, even this far out.

Will see what Clark or Gore do then.

Not too interested in the others at the moment10/12/2006 01:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 02:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Yeah...I think Warner is waiting...using his new gathered PAC (Forward Together) money to donate generously to campaigns and candidates...a possible 2nd spot on the ticket to gain name rec...or simply a run for Gov. again or the retirement of John Warner (R) from the Senate in 2008.

As for the thoughts about Guiliani...well...not sure about his appeal in the south. I have read that he still has hero status, but as a friend of mine noted, he has MAJOR problems for social conservatives when they learn about his background and issues. He is pro-choice, gay friendly, and has a host of personal relationship issues (ex-wives...affairs...etc.).

Although, then again, why would social conservatives care about all that? (grin).10/12/2006 03:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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.10/12/2006 06:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|As for the South, I wouldn't count out either Gore or Edwards up front.

Obama might create an interesting phenomenon in the South.

Wesley Clark is another bona fide Southerner with excellent military credentials and a history of good sense on Iraq.

Southerners like governors more than senators, and Richardson's international record pre-NM governor has a definite appeal in Dixie.

Just waiting for the Democratic VP nod in order to make credible in the south a less regional or military/foreign policy ticket-topper is the universally respected Sam Nunn, who is no older than John McCain.

By contrast, the great southern hope of the Republicans, George "Macaca" Allen is history, and any hope of Lindsey Graham as VP to carry McCain through the south has gone the way of all Foleys. Ralph Reed has already been toasted to a turn. Haley Barbour is an imposing antique; Jeff Sessions and Bill Frist are dwarves; Kay Bailey Hutchinson has no more chance than Phil Gramm did, for the same reasons, and anyway the nation probably wouldn't have another Texan just now, as it won't buy another Bush -- adios Jeb.

Kos was the only one beating the Mark Warner drum, and the netroots didn't pick up the rhythm.

The Warner announcement is hell on Hillary; but Edwards, Gore, and Clark are the beneficiaries. (So is the Democratic Party).10/13/2006 01:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Erik|W|P|General Clark...
Get ready....

http://securingamerica.com/10/13/2006 05:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|I was going to mention Edwards as well, but Randall beat me to it.10/13/2006 01:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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.com10/11/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chris|W|P|Word is that Pearce asked J.D. to stop supporting him because Russell did not want to be tainted by Hayworth’s fascination with Henry Ford’s “Americanization” program.10/11/2006 07:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|TEDSKI--Our legislature has only ONE of these????10/12/2006 08:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Methinks of Gould as CC Burro speaks...10/12/2006 04:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|...or Nichols or Farnsworth or Anderson or Knaperek or Quelland or...10/12/2006 06:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|The list is endless (that's a metaphor) -- the junior flight is lining up in LD 28, waiting for launch.10/14/2006 01:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 08:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|That’s almost as bad as Pederson speaking before a Jewish hate-group.10/11/2006 09:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|As much as I dislike Pearce, I'm inclined to go toward idiot instead of racist. I read his apology as printed in the paper and it sounds sincere, unlike the usual political backpedaling "regret" statements.

As for the argument that he should have known who the National Alliance is, I don't take much stock in that. Unless you specifically follow that kind of thing, who's to know what any of these groups are all about. Virtually every political group (on the left and right) these days uses some innocuous name that makes them sound like a bunch of swell people who love puppies and kittens and babies.

Finally, I've gotten an email from him that you could tell was fired off without thinking. When I called him on the stuff he said in his email, he apologized. I got the impression he's the kind of guy who has a short temper and goes with his gut w/o taking the time to reason it out.10/11/2006 09:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|You know...this bothers me to a major major degree. The social and intellectual networks that candidates and office holders run in matters. A person who subscribes to and discusses The Nation is a different type of person, as is a person that subscribes to and reads the NYTIMES or regular national newspapers.

In an age of numerous information sources and overload it takes effort and conscious choice to determine what papers, articles, stories you choose to subscribe to, read, and forward.

The fact that he was reading and forwarding a story from the National Alliance DOES say something about him, his philosophy, and how he thinks. It doesn't mean he is an out and out biggot, but it also does tell us about how reasonable and mainstream he is.

What this tells me, at the least, is that this guy is not just conservative but that he grasps for and covets ideas that most Americans would view as ancient, unreasonable and indeed out of the mainstream of society.

It is no different that what many have known about Allen (VA) but have come to see now in the light of day.10/11/2006 12:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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.


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 01:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger OVD|W|P|Tedski, you talked a while ago about some accident that Kyl was involved in back in’99. Are you also calling for an investigation in the reports that Gabrielle Giffords got in a car accident during the primary race this year. Supposedly she hit some foreign student, I think from an Asian country, and she begged him not to call the police. Is there any truth to this? Don’t you think the Star and Citizen should investigate such a charge? According to some reports the guy she hit is kind of nervous about talking because he does not want to cause any problems with his visa.

Did Gabby use any of her influence as a former legislator to intimidate the poor guy? Did she really insist that he not call the police? Do you think there was a cover up or are the papers just incompetent? Would be nice to hear the full truth of this story.10/11/2006 04:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|You got me Sandy. And everything that Mark Foley did was okay because of Gerry Studds.10/11/2006 04:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I think what Mark Foley did was a disgrace and he should resign immediately and seek help. Oh, sorry that’s exactly what he did. End of story I guess.10/11/2006 04:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|Sandy is reporting a report of a report.

Sandy doesn't say who he is; and Sandy doesn't say whose report he is reporting.

Moreover, this the currently polular debating point of Repubicans regarding the Foley situation -- the challenge to prove or disprove reports or assumptions that are not in evidence.

Now why would any reasonable person give this any serious thought; and in particular, why would any serious news organization devote resources to following it up?

In fact, Tedski, why is this still posted?10/11/2006 04:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Made some phone calls, here is what I came up with.

Gabby was at a stop sign, behind a gentleman (who was Asian). While waiting she starts digging in her purse for something, lets the car creep forward, and bumps him. Supposedly, neither car suffered so much as a fender dent, but I wasn't a witness.

Anyhow, Gabby was ticketed (it's public record), and she did traffic school a couple weeks ago to have the points removed.

Not sure where the big story is in that, but have fun with it.10/11/2006 04:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Phx Kid,

You're absolutely right -- what Foley did was sick and disgusting, and he was correct to resign.

Of course, that misses the point that what keeps the story going isn't what Foley did -- any large organization will have some people doing bad things. What reflects poorly on the Republican party is how long they had the info, and what they chose to do (or not do) with it.

Not to mention the continuous conflicting and changing stories.

What I find particularly despicable is Reynolds talked Foley into running again AFTER he had information about Foley's inappropriate behavior. That just emphasizes politics (retaining a House majority) is what mattered to the House majority leadership, and just about anything else, including common decency, could be sacrificed to the cause.10/11/2006 04:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|The citation and court record of disposition show that Aug. 21, 06, Ms. Giffords got a speeding ticket, was sentenced to defensive driving school to avoid MVD points.

Nothing about an accident, or accident report anyway.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.com10/11/2006 07:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I guess you don’t want to talk about the candidate forum that Gabby blew off in Sun City yesterday. Randy Graf, David Nolan, and Jay Quick made it to the event but no Gabrielle Giffords. What’s wrong? Is she afraid to talk to 120 senior citizens that vote in high percentages? Was it too far of a drive?10/11/2006 07:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Phxkid:

I think Randy is getting about 6 debate opportunities with Giffords. Three more than Kyl has given Pederson. I would say that he is lucky to be on the stage with her THAT many times.

With no affront to the Sun City residents at all, I am betting that she had other events and I know that she has been there a host of times.10/11/2006 07:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Those six are infinitely more than Renzi has offerred Simon.

You can't "blow off" an event you didn't agree to attend. As Kral notes, there is no way any candidate (including Randy) can make everything.10/11/2006 07:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|As to Randy's "troubles" and the need for national support. I think he needs is FAR more than this suggests. When the new FEC fundraising totals come out, we will see just how much he needs that support and how badly.

Early in this race, most experts said a candidate needed to raise well over a million dollars to be considered viable. Randy had only raised $400k by the end of the last period. He should have gotten a boost after he won the primary, but $600 would really really suprise me. He also ended the primary with very little on hand...the smarts of the Republican party for backing an inept Huffman campaign over Graf.

Giffords had over $1.1 Million at the end of the last report date, far more on hand, and you can bet that she has raised TON since the primary as people who like a winner start sending the checks.

Giffords gift to the DNCC was that she raised enough to "go it alone" and it allowed them to spread their wealth to other districts. Randy was snubbed...because he couldn't raise the funds and he is not seen as a viable candidate.10/15/2006 07:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|Well, Graf’s numbers are in through the end of October…

Since the Primary, Randy raised $106,000 with $67,600 coming from individuals and $38,500 coming from PACs. That brings his total for this election cycle to $653k, with $140k cash onhand at the end of the period.

Still waiting for Giffords numbers, but today’s the filing deadline…10/10/2006 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 09:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Yeah...just wait until Randy Graf's record starts coming out. It is not only that he hired a child molester to originally run his campaign or the guns in bars bill.

Prime time? He is not ready for public access!10/10/2006 09:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...this mornings NY TIMES shows a picture of Randy and Gabrielle. It notes the McCain endorsement and then prominently that the RNCC will still not be providing money and ads. They say he is too far behind and essentially that the race just doesn't matter to them.

It might be because they are now trying to fight to keep the Senate as well. The need that money everywhere right now. Florida (Foley), Texas (Delay), Colorado, Ohio, and now up the road in Hayworth's district. I don't like to be this optimistic, but I think they are getting ready for a colossal tidal wave to hit them.

The other recent news is that Republican strategists now see anywhere from a loss of 7 to as high has 40 seats in the House.

So...Randy will have to go it alone on this one. It will be interesting to see the new FEC reports come out soon to see just how alone he can go it.10/10/2006 10:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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 01:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|Hey, Geezer Harry Mitchell has Jimmy Eat World jamming at his fundraiser compared with JD who has . . . uh nobody!

Remember Kerry rocking with the Foo Fighters, Springsteen and Green Day?

Advantage Dems! No Contest!10/10/2006 02:35:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous 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|Blogger 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 04:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|Well said Eli ;-)10/10/2006 05:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|BTW Guard Dude,

What toc001 was alluding to was that Harry’s campaign has some spirit and life to it, while JD’s campaign has all the vim and vigor of a used car salesman convention.

Get a grip! Or at least pay attention...10/10/2006 07:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|Yea, Guard, where's your sense of humor? Did the "terrorists" scare it out of you? Little pants pisser!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 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 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|Blogger 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 08:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Framer is right, it wouldn't happen with Republicans because they rarely even let dissenters within 100 yards of their candidates.10/10/2006 09:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Garrett O'Hara|W|P|Rebuttal posted.
http://arizonagrowler.blogsome.com/2006/10/10/rum-romanism-rebellion-rebuttal/10/10/2006 09:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Wait...I mean 2002...its all a blur.10/10/2006 10:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Garrett O'Hara|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 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 12:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|Wow, I thought you wingnuts were supposed to be tough!

As Growler recorded in his commentary, he was "Lightly" touched, and in his response to my inquiries over at AZ Congress watch he downplayed the touch as a move by the female staffer to calm him down.

I said if they damaged his equipment I would certainly complain and ask for reimbursement.

I know you guys are looking for a "Macaca" moment, but it ain't gonna fly. In fact, I would shut up about it before anymore people find out you were upset because a woman touched you.

What will the Freepers and the Minute Maids say?10/10/2006 02:37:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous 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 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|Blogger Garrett O'Hara|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|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.10/10/2006 03:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 05:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|What a ridiculous bunch of tripe. If O’Hara doesn’t know and/or didn’t recognize it at the time as assault, then he obviously wasn’t assault.

My goodness, you should change the name of your blog Arizona Growler to Arizona Whiner if you going to keep this up!

Cheese anyone?10/10/2006 05:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger DRP|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 07:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|Right on DRP!

Guard, I didn't just call O'Hara out, I called you and framer out too! The more I hear about it, the more ridiculous it sounds.

O'Hara even said it was a light touch on his arm, so what are you bed wetters crying about?

Oh, I called you bed wetter, does that mean you won again?

Damn!10/10/2006 08:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|WATBs, period.10/10/2006 08:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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 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 07:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|Yea guard I feel better, but I think someone grabbed my ass! Is that assault? I think I'll call my mommy!10/11/2006 09:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger labwiroro|W|P|Elizabeth,

A person cannot press criminal charges. Only the State can press charges for criminal assault. The person in this instance may report the alleged crime to the police who will then forward a recommendation to a prosecutor to press charges. So, nice try in interpreting the law.

I thought I read somewhere that you are running for JP. Wow, you just proved that you are surely the right person for the job with that stellar legal analysis.10/11/2006 12:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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. :D10/11/2006 01:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger labwiroro|W|P|Glad to know that narcolepsy won't keep you from performing your duties!

(And don't trust everything lawyers tell you)10/09/2006 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 . 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 Anonymous|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.10/09/2006 05:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Yeah...confuses me too. Sounds like they were afraid of scaring some of the their Republican membership on this one. I would be quite suprised if the business community members that I know want Graf over Giffords.

Giffords is reasonable and has had a good working relationship with business interests. She will work with them to create an infrastructure that supports economic growth without giving away the farm to do it.

I still can't believe that businesses in S. Arizona want what Graf is peddling. I mean, realistically, Mexicans are a very large customer base for S. Arizona retail. In addition, the homes here are built with the help of illegal labor. I would bet that land development and home-building is our number one industry. How will they stand it if Graf walls off the border, cracks down on those that hire illegals, and that wants to deport their labor force?

Doesn't sound like a smart endorsement to me...unless they believe that he REALLY won't do any of that as a Congressman.10/09/2006 07:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 07:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|I got endorsed. What's the problem?10/09/2006 09:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Tom, do you even have a Republican opponent?10/10/2006 07:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|Actually, mine was a general comment.

That being said, I will respond to Mr. X4mr's question. No, I don't think that the Chamber's endorsement has a lot of impact in the current political climate, except that it generates a bit of buzz. Given what happened in the recent Republican primaries, one might even stop to think that the Chamber's endorsement is actually a negative among certain Republican constituencies.

I was actually a bit surprised by the Chamber's endorsement, though I am happy to have it. I think that it, along with the Napolitano endorsement, may show a bit of a turning point for the business community as they start to set aside partisanship for the general good of the state. However, some of their other endorsements seem to show that at times they regard the Republican label as more important than anything else.

I have learned a lot about the endsorsement process over the last few months and sometimes it is a bit more complicated than it appears. Why, for instance was the Chamber willing to overlook my left-wingedness, but not Steve Farley's? Why endorse an extremist like Gail Griffin, but not a fairly run-of-the mill conservative like Murchison? I suppose that much of this is situational.

One thing is clear, however, and that is that if the Chamber's endorsements in LD 26 are elected that economic development in Pima County will be in serious trouble. Maybe then the business community will learn to stop putting all of their eggs in the Republican basket.10/10/2006 04:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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.