Now Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl want to start a "William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence" at the University of Arizona College of Law. Of course, this time, the object isn't to whitewash Rehnquist's reputation as was the case with Marley. The media has been doing that for the last thirty years.
The U of A Law school has recently been talking about expanding Hispanic enrollment. I can think of few symbols worse than naming something after Rehnquist for that. The man cut his teeth in the Republican party working on voter supression projects in the 1960's. What next? A wing at the medical school named for Tomás Tancredo?
Alan Dershowitz had a recent article on the Rehnquist's reputation as a law student and young lawyer. There are also stories of Rehnquist's activities from young poll watchers at the time, like Sen. Manuel "Lito" Peña and Rep. Art Hamilton.
Setting aside his abyssmal civil rights record on the Supreme Court (difficult, I admit), why the heck would we want to name something after a guy who made his early career this way?
NB - Irony watch: McCain has recently taken on an anti-pork campaign. I take it he can justify that the future of the republic hinges on this thing getting funded?
Art Hamilton told me a story similar to the one that Peña told in the linked article. If I may paraphrase his story:
AH: I told him that there were only two ways to leave, and only one involved his own power. I regret that. TP: Yeah, you probably shouldn't have threatened him like that. AH: No, I regret it because I wouldn't have let him walk out if I'd known what he'd be like on the Supreme Court.|W|P|114117726301151284|W|P|Just to Make It Complete, Let's Build It On a Deed Restricted Lot|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
|W|P|One of the problems with pork is that one legislator's pork is another legislator's vital necessity for his district. And as long as the public knows/thinks that there are federal dollars to be gotten for local projects [pork], legislators will be expected to bring home as much bacon as possible. I wonder how McCain is going to rationalize this?
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You know Kral, I am reading about how some organizations dehumanize their opponents to better be able to fight against them. We should never do that with our political opponents and too many try to. We should remember that our political opponents are human and can be polite, kind and even charming. Being able to disagree with them should not make us unwilling to at least talk to them. When you do not, you have the situation you have in Washington right now.
Tedski|W|P|It ain't just $2 Million...it's $2 Million a year for five years.Heck, think of all of the private school vouchers we could fund. :)
For example, I worked for Sam Coppersmith's Senate race in 1994. Coppersmith was assailed by Dick Mahoney for being some sort of conservative sell-out. Mahoney even ran one ad where Coppersmith's mustache went back and forth onto Jon Kyl's face with the tag line "Coppersmith and Kyl, can you tell the difference?" I remember Coppersmith being taken apart even by activists for not supporting Bill Clinton when he needed him.
(Of course, given what has happened in the meantime, being criticized by Mahoney for not being liberal enough would be like being criticized by Kevin Federline for being not talented enough)
I told Darcy Renfro, who directed the southern Arizona campaign, "Just wait, after the primary, Sam will be painted as some sort of Marxist." Well, it took an extra two weeks because of a recount, but as soon as Coppersmith was confirmed as the nominee, Kyl was running ads claiming that Coppersmith was some sort of unreconstructed lefty who was too close to Bill Clinton.
Well, I suppose it is too much to expect consistency from different opponents. It is suprising however, when a candidate gets attacked from the right and left by the same set of opponents.
For example, when Gabrielle Giffords announced her campaign would be co-chaired by Dorothy Finley and Eddie Basha, I heard no end of complaints from supporters of other candidates. The complaints went something like this:
That Dorothy Finley is a Republican. And Basha? He's anti-Union and a party switcher! See, Giffords is a closet Republican!So, what claim have I been hearing over the last few days, from the some of the same people, by the way?
Giffords kicked Finley and Basha off of her committee because the Unions made her! See, this just proves that she'll sell out to special interests.First off, near as I can tell, Finley is still a co-chair of Giffords's campaign. Basha's name is no longer there. From what I know about Basha and Giffords, I have a feeling that he removed his own name. Basha is about to take a whole lot of grief from the UFCW (who has not yet endorsed); it is probably best that his name is off. He is also heading up an education initiative, and I'm pretty sure that he'll take his name off of that as well. Aside from that though, the knock against her before was that she was supported by people who were not liked by some liberal interest groups, now she is being taken to task for allegedly cowtowing to those same interest groups? Come on! Pick a criticism and stick with it. Besides, I thought we wanted our candidates to take direction from labor. Also, the evidence doesn't bear out what folks are claiming. Despite the rhetoric of solidarity, the labor movement is not a monolith. Some labor organizations have supported Giffords, but as I said, UFCW has not endorsed. Although they recently signed a solidarity agreement with the State AFL-CIO, they still have an independent streak. I find it unlikely that other unions would be taking direction from one that other AFL-CIO members were raking over the coals a few months ago for a bitter public split with the national organization. And, one union, UTU, has endorsed Patty Weiss. I have spoken to some Steelworkers who are at the very least unenthusiastic about Giffords's campaign, it is unlikely that they would take direction from a "rebel" union as well. Given Giffords's recent support of SEIU, AFSCME can't be too happy with her either. But, why be consistent? Take her apart for getting support from one of those dangerous special interests who wouldn't have been so dangerous if they were supporting your candidate. NB - Speaking of labor, any word yet on whether Latas or Weiss support the right of county workers to organize? Giffords does. I suppose that just makes her a sell out to liberal interests. Unless it makes her part of some DLC vanguard. I am so confused!|W|P|114113654656237127|W|P|She's Too Conservative, No Wait, She's Too Liberal...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Zelph|W|P|OK, but she's still a Scrippsee. |W|P|Oh Tedski stop bowing down to the powers that be & spinning for them (they wont pay you back) and have a backbone for once. Tedski|W|P|I'd take the advice if you had the backbone to put your name down. |W|P|So tedski is wondering if Latas is a union supporter? Well, it's been said at the forums that Jeff grew up in a union household. Missed out on Christmases because his dad was on strike. Jeff has publicly ome out and said he is a union supporter. So there it is.As a former Steelworker, I can say I would find that labor will have a friend in Congress with Jeff.
By the way, "Gabby" did indeed throw her chairs under the bus for the union endorsement. Basha is reportedly PISSED about this.
Can someone start singing: "Take the money and run."
|W|P|TEDSKI--To correct an inaccuracy--They are not alleging that she is too liberal; they are alleging that she is opportunistic, a very different animal. Why not go to the source? Why don't you simply ask Gabby point-blank about this rumor? If this rumor is fabrication, this would be the best way to squelch it. If this rumor is true, then it is fair for the primary voters to know this.
FYI--Latas definitely supports the right of county workers [and all workers] to unionize.
Eli Blake|W|P|That's why Liberals need to take back the word Liberal. Don't run from it, because as long as they think they can get votes out of it, Republicans will always call every Democrat Liberal (I mean, they used it to take out Charlie Stenholm two years ago, so I guess to them there is no such thing as a Democrat who isn't a Liberal).So, yeah, I'm a Liberal.
|W|P|Gabby is following the DLC playbook. She speaks like Hillary, and she thinks raising money is more important than meeting voters.She has Joementum and she is taking the same professional advice that brought Mary Judge Ryan and George Cunningham low votes and made them unelectable.
She seeks opportunities and deserves credit for being an opportunist.
She would certainly disavow the Prezelskis if she thought it would give her traction. Millionaire Democrats and Republican lobbyists have given her the money to win, but they can't get her the votes as easily.
Unelectable is the WORD that follows the Gabby money trail.
Eddie Basha has friends that I WOULD never cross. Life is too short.
Dorothy Finley is a good Republican and Gabby's mentor, and Gabby is a quick learner. She is both transactional and unelectable.
|W|P|Well Ted, Latas is listening. Here is a link to his diary on the Dailykos, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/28/144649/427, I think he makes his point loud and clear he's pretty union blue. |W|P|Wow, good post on the kos. |W|P|FYI...UA Young Democrats will host Gabby tomorrow (Wed) at 7:30ish in the Union Kiva room. And before you all get your undies in a twist, all candidates will be invited to campus as UAYD does not endorse during a contested Primary.
|W|P|And this is why the Democratic party and its members blow. Cant agree on anything! This is why Repubs win people! |W|P|you hit the nail on the head "who cares!"They're too busy eating their own, trying to figure who's a real liberal and who has forgotten where they came from ... or something like that.
Shoot. Might as well just save money and hand the election over now.
|W|P|Wasn’t it Howard Dean that said, “When you run a Republican "Lite" against a Republican the real Republican wins every time.” We certainly know this to be true. In recent years Democratic candidates who have been afraid to stand up for traditional Democratic values always lose.Gifford’s is not electable because her "boldest" idea seams to be. Compromise, go to the middle and give it up to them so you can get a little crumb. I don't think so, not in the most remote sense do I believe Gifford's can win thisrace.This is not personal at all—I have met Ms.Giffords and she seems to be very nice. But nice doesn’t win elections, bold ideas do. Ms.Giffords is too weak to stand up to the ugly Repug machine that will bulldoze everything in its path. if she wins this primary we lose the seat.
This DLC crowd have been using this same strategy for years. Let's see, have Democrats been winning elections lately? Has going to the middle and not standing for anything been working? Yet, they keep doing it every election cycle?
The DLC people here in Arizonahave been been irrelevent for a while now--they just haven’t realized it yet. The reality is that they are still players because they have ties to big money and can raise money.
I can't believe that anyone thinks that Gabby Giffords' candidacy will result in anything other than another loss. If you do-- Look up the definition of what constitutes Mental Illness.
Now I am not saying this to be unkind or to call people names, however, it happens to be true.
As Gabby gains support in this primary I see the opportunity to take his seat from the Republicans slipping away. I’m hoping like hell that this won’t happen. But I will fight them with all of my heart. As far as I’m concerned the Republicans will get this seat only if they stomp over my dead body to do so. That’s how serious I am about winning this race for the Democrats. I’m hoping that all good Democats are willing to fight for this seat with everything they have as well.
To Tedski, whomever you happen to be. Please know that-- while doing the bidding of the leftover DLC here in Arizona you too may find yourself being labled irrelevent. I would hate to see that happen… you sound like you are passionate about your Democratic poltics and we certainly need more people in the party that have that same energy. Please get off this Gifford’s kick and try to help your readers evaluate this race fairly so the Democrat who can win the General Election is the Democrat that wins the primary—if you are not willing to use your critical thinking skills and help the community do the same in evaluating this race realistically-- I’m afraid my dear you will become part of the problem.
BTW: Sam Coppersmith absolutely Arizona Democrats out. I was in the midst of the 1994 disaster and the party has never recovered. A freshman Congressman from a conservative district has no business running or the US Senate. The Arizona Democratic party was in shambles. Coppersmith let us down big time—the hundreds of volunteers who helped get him elected to Congress were especially let down—I was one of those many hundreds.
I remain anonymous because of the nature of my job..
|W|P|Is Dorothy Finley and Eddie Basha a part of her committee still?I'm confused that it will look like she deserted them for some union endorsements when they might still be working the money from a back room.
She needs to show some DLC spine and let her supporters know the real story about Ms. Finley and Mr. Basha.
Its really about having an image that plays well with the primary voters and the contributors might have to keep a low profile and keep her negatives from blooming like dandelions.
She still needs to define her image as something other than a creature of privilege and rolling up her sleeves and getting the union endorsements will let her look like Rosie the Riveter, better than the militaristic flight suit photo that reminds me of: Mission Accomplished!
|W|P|TO WHO CARES!/ANONYMOUS--Much irony in that you are saying the Democrats can't agree on anything when the Republican party has been imploding over their total fiscal irresponsibility of the past several years, corruption, Medicare part D, immigration, etc. and eating, no, spitting out its moderates. TO ANONYMOUS AFTER ELI--That is the most no-substance, no-logic rant that I've seen on this blog. Do you know the meaning of the word "alleged"? What's your problem? Did Giffords steal your cookies in a previous life?
TO ANONYMOUS AFTER KRALMAJALES--DLC irrelevant in Arizona? You think Napolitano [DLC associated "New" Democrat] is irrelevant?
|W|P|It is alleged that many of Gabby's supporters have been known to maximize shareholders' profits at the expense of the Democratic Party and common sense.More DLC boilerplate from the New Democrats does not seem to play well where people don't wear ties.
If you can fake sincerity, you've got it made. I wonder where the genuine candidate is?
We read lots of predictions here but little strategy to get someone elected who can win the general election.
If the Finleys and Bashas were dropped for expediency, when will the DLC disavowal begin?
|W|P|Jeff Latas, Alex Rodriguez and Patty Weiss are definitely not cut from the Status Quo.They are less likely to disavow their roots to win some ephemeral endorsements.
This election is about getting votes, not getting money and endorsements.
Both Patty Weiss and Jeff Latas support unions and minimum wage increases for working people.
Alex Rodriguez is very capable and likeable, and his life on the border is compelling.
Managing El Campo does not seem to have the same narrative that the other candidates bring to the election.
The working class is different from the rich, they have less money.
|W|P|Gabby has created either the impression or the rumor that Ms. Finley and Mr. Basha have been asked to move aside or to the back room.This has not been answered except in whispers.
DLC and wealth aside, Basha and Finley are not known to be supporters of workers and universal health care.
If Gabby is distancing herself from her early adopters, will she be likely to win votes or lose them?
This is the question that CD8 needs answered.
|W|P|Earlier today only Jessica Finley was on the list of endorsements at Gabby's site. Tonight,Dorothy Finley has reappeared as an endorsement.
So everything is okay again on the endorsement list. Only Eddie Basha has yet to reappear.
|W|P|Eddie Basha is Back!! Wow......can someone say FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOPDLC and wealth aside, Basha and Finley are not known to be supporters of workers and universal health care.
Does anyone know if El Campo workers had adequate healthcare and benefits when it was under Gifford's ownership? Were they unionized? If not, why not?
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|man I wish Ted was doing this blog fulltime...he could do stuff on my district more....oh wait he already is! Does this mean I owe you money Ted?
Daily Kos and Wactivist are reporting some internal DCCC numbers that look very bad for J. D. Hayworth. I know, it will drive all of us into a funk.
Here are some numbers:
Larry King 37% Rep. J. D. Hayworth 44% Sen. Harry Mitchell 43% Hayworth 42% Sen. Chuck Blanchard 41% Hayworth 40%What the heck is that all about? King is an attorney and political activist that ran against Hayworth once before. I love the guy, but there has been some grousing from party higher-ups about his candidacy. Ironically, the fact that King's numbers show Hayworth to be so vulnerable will be what leads to the party recruiting another candidate. At the Democratic State Convention on Saturday, I heard some buzz about recruiting Mitchell to run. Mitchell is incredibly popular in Tempe, having the sort of connection with citizens that most politicians would envy. Mitchell is currently the chair of the State Democratic Party. This might create some temporary chaos while the deck chairs get reshuffled, but I think the party could handle that if it meant driving Hayworth into early retirement. Chuck Blanchard? He last ran for office in 1994, when he lost a race for Congress against Matt Salmon. Blanchard had also talked about running for Attorney General in 1994 and 2002. Given how long it has been since he has been in the public eye, it is interesting to see that even he beats Hayworth. I knew Blanchard even before he was first elected to office; he's a hell of a guy. He also would make a fantastic congressman, he had been clerk to Sandra Day O'Connor, counsel to the US Army, the state's first director of Homeland Security. The guy is incredibly intelligent, but even better, he's the sort of intelligent that is curious and likes to ask questions. Hayworth has been using immigration the way some ogre in a bad fantasy movie uses a club. Obviously, it doesn't get a politician as far as the conventional wisdom says it does. Hayworth has always been a blowhard, but he was a blowhard that painted himself as good for his constituency. That Hayworth hasn't been in political trouble for a long time. This new Mojado-hater mouthbreather persona doesn't seem to work for him. Don "Still No Supporters" Goldwater and Randy Graf ought to listen. Then again, I hope they don't. NB - I suppose it is possible that Chuck Blanchard has been confused with more recent candidate and giant killer Jay Blanchard. Then again, it is probably more possible that people are confusing Larry King with, uh, Larry King.|W|P|114110004834334619|W|P|Hayworth in Trouble? Gee, That's Too Bad.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Eli Blake|W|P|I love Mitchell, but like Jim Pederson said Saturday, running for Senate is one way to get out of being party chair. And yeah, I'd love to see Hayworth go. He's never been the kind of unbeatable Republican stalwart that people in Washington seem to think he is. |W|P|I heard from several people about the poll. Apparently after hearing candidate descriptions and position statements, King was actually UP 44-38. Granted, it was a partisan poll so the descriptions were probably skewed, but... Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|This would the year to get rid of JD.I just wish I had the money to run. :(
|W|P|What is up with that indeed!The DCCC runs Chuck Blanchard's name against Hayworth but not last year's candidate who won a whole 34% of the vote????
Does anyone know why the DCCC is ignoring Elizabeth Rogers?
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Anonymous, I have a blog: http://e-rog.blogspot.comgo there and taunt me.
I also got 38% of the vote thank you very much.
|W|P|ms. rogershuh? how is asking why your name was not polled instead of a guy who hasn't been in elected office in over a decade "taunting" you?
it's a legitimate question that was asked of anyone who knows the answer.
a little sensitive, no?
|W|P|1. Larry King is “the” candidate in CD-5 and that’s the end of it. Larry has been working his tail off for two years helping other candidates and putting together his grassroots infrastructure. Now with these numbers out he can raise the money to actually beat Hayworth. Larry King is one of the most talented Congressional candidates in the county. Some very powerful National organizations have recognized his talent and tried to get him to move to any number of districts where they had a shot at a seat, lots of candidates willing to run but with no real talent.
Anyone who moves in now or anyone who is seen to be activally recruiting other candidates to run in CD-5 will have to answer to the grassroots community in our district. This community by the way is not made of the fringe. We are in fact, all PC’s, disrtict chairs, state committee members,county party officers and we are organized. Don’t even try it! Larry King is our candidate-and we will thwart any attempt to challange him. Larry was the only one with the guts to run when it looked like it was impossible to win this seat. Anyone who jumps in now is just an opportunist with no vision—the exact type that will lose a race if it’s a tough one.
So send Larry some money and let’s all stop speculating.
Here I thought that after her crushing, soul destroying, id hammering 61-39 defeat at the hands of Karin Uhlich, I would never have to write about Kathleen Dunbar again. Well, I wrote a few gloaty posts, but I thought she was done, finished, kaput, terminado.
No such luck.
Some of you may remember that during the last few weeks of Dunbar's political career, she chose to sue a number of people for, uh, criticizing her. Yes, it is the sort of tactic you would expect from one of those freak wingnut politicians in Eastern Europe. The lawsuit was filed against Uhlich, Democratic Party Chairman Paul Eckerstrom, Amphitheater School District Official Todd Jaeger and a number of Democratic activists. The lawsuit was never served, which led to some head scratching and wondering if the whole thing was just a poorly executed political tactic. A couple of wags, myself included, thought that Eckerstrom or someone else should have filed a response to the suit to force some action. For the most part, the whole thing just sort of faded away, and we don't even make jokes about it anymore.
Well, the jokes can begin again!
Dunbar's attorney has served the lawsuit. There is an additional defendant, the Amphitheater School District. And, there is a new charge: False Light Invasion of Privacy. This is the sort of thing a private citizen can sue for, but a public official cannot. There is case law on this, Godbehere v Phoenix Newspapers, which clearly states that a public official cannot sue on those grounds.
Even without the new and improved extra frivolous charge, the suit is ridiculous. (as is the grammar and punctuation in the filings) Jaeger made his initial comments in May of 2004, so there is some question about whether Dunbar can sue over it now. Also, the comments were made during a public city council hearing, where there are legal protections for speakers. The suit against the party and its activists is even more tenuous, since the party was quoting a newspaper article that in turn quoted Jaeger's protected speech.
Dunbar's attorney, Stephen Gonzalez (See below), should know a bit better than this. I mean, I'm still an undergrad trying to get a BS in Physics, and this guy went to law school. (I don't know where, I can't find him on the State Bar Association site) Why is it that I seem to have done more research on this one than he has? I've asked around, and he is not a litigator, but a real estate attorney.
Well, no need to worry. We have laws on this sort of thing in Arizona. If a suit is wholly without merit, guess who has to foot the legal bills?
CORRECTION - I misspelled Gonzalez's name in the original post. I found his entry at the bar association, and he went to the U of A law school.
NB - The Arizona Democratic Party still has their site up detailing Dunbar's allegations and the facts behind them.
Attorney Bill Risner is handling the Democratic party's case against Dunbar. This silliness detracts from his more important and interesting job defending Daniel Strauss and Shanti Sellz against ridiculous charges. Check out the details at nomoredeaths.org.|W|P|114108724885298368|W|P|Kathleen Dunbar: The Gift That Keeps On Giving|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well if she wants to spend her money on this... eckeric|W|P|Hey Ted, re:Daniel and Shanti, do you want a yard sign? |W|P|He's there, Tedski. You didn't find him on the bar's web site because you misspelled his name.It's Gonzalez with a Z
http://www.myazbar.org/Members/Memberfinder/Detail.cfm?ID=51720
|W|P|Well, Eric, I have a yard sign. Do you want a Howe Gelb CD? eckeric|W|P|I figured that you had one Tom. I know for a fact that Ted still has his Trasoff sign in his window.Howe Gelb? Is he the guy in that Danish band?
eckeric|W|P|seriously though, yeah I need to buy one of those CDs.
Just to show that once in a while, even I can be wrong and I recognize that, I made an error, a faux pas, in my post about the State Treasurer's race. I said that Laura Knaperek was a possible candidate for Senate in District 17.
I heard from my legion of fans. They tell me that Knaperek isn't interested in the seat. Although she's a proven vote getter in the district, the Republican candidate would be the Jeff Gannon look-alike Mark Thompson. Thompson, if you remember, came in fourth for re-election in 2004.
So, why the heck would Knaperek dodge this race and instead look at running state wide?
It turns out that even though the East Valley is considered staunchly Republican, there are trends that are looking bad for the Republicans in some areas. Kanperek's District 17, for example, voted for Al Gore and John Kerry. They obviously still support Republicans, recent elections in Tempe bear that out. However, it is becoming clear that someone like Knaperek, who has played good soldier for the far right for a while, is not the sort of Republican that can be supported there. She is going for Treasurer because she sees which way the wind is blowing and doesn't think she can get elected to the State Senate.
This also means the Republicans will have to look elsewhere to pick up a Senate seat for their "veto-proof majority" dream.|W|P|114097071298798176|W|P|Tempe Abnormal|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Zelph|W|P|A recent editorial in The Arizona Republic confirms that Knaperek has expressed interest in running for State Treasurer. |W|P|Well, finally people have started to wake up to this fact. Tempe is split 1\3 Democrat, 1\3 Republican and 1\3 Independent\Other.I love it when the Republic and the other news agencies pretend that the district and the city are somehow Republican leaning because the GOP 1\3rd outweights the Democrat 1\3rd by like 900 votes.
Sorry, John Kerry carried District 17, which includes most of Tempe and South Scottsdale by 8,000 votes (margin) in a district that has a total registration of 72,000.
Need i say more?
|W|P|And don't forget -- 17 voted against prop 200 as well. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I have a post, and it died.Anyway, Laura is also female and women do well in the district.
|W|P|K-Nap is not running for State Treasurer. She's been promised a high-paying job by Dino when he wins the spot. |W|P|Laura Knaprek will be announcing soon for State Treasurer. Stay tuned as all hell will be breaking loose! Eli Blake|W|P|Ted:Sorry to start a rumor on your blog, but at the meeting on Saturday, they announced all the candidates who were in attendance and running for something, and they called your name. Are you running for something, or did they make a mistake and meant to call Tom?
|W|P|"Anyway, Laura is also female and women do well in the district."Yes, we residents of district 17 will vote for anything with a vagina. Testes? Not for us, thankyouverymuch.
Perhaps elizabeth will tell us how to "grow a pair."
:-P
|W|P|Anoymous who talked about vaginas -It is actually very much conventional wisdom here in Tempe and 17 that a generic woman does better than a generic man at the polls.
Do you disagree? Perhaps you personally are the opposite and would rather vote for the generic man?
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|In Scottsdale (D8) all three members of the State Leg are women, two in Tempe, the mayor of Scottsdale is a woman and of course we also have a woman Gov. The second in a row. Women not only in the East Valley but in Arizona as well as nationally are viewed as less corrupt then men.
sarcasm
I cannot imagine why.
/sarcasm
|W|P|Then what happened to you? Aren't you a woman? |W|P|Then what happened to you? Aren't you a woman?I wouldn't want to assume anything.
Eli Blake|W|P|Yes, anonymous. I've met Elizabeth and she is a woman. And a very classy one at that. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Thank you Eli, you are so kind. :)But hey, at least Attorney General Terry Goddard hasn't sent in a team of investigators yet. Has he?Well, right about the time that eager Tucsonans flipped by the Skinny on the way to Red Meat or those "Uncensored" ads that I wouldn't know anything about, sources disclosed that Attorney General Goddard was indeed investigating Petersen's office. Those weekly papers are so last century. I guess the Republicans shouldn't worry. They have a registration advantage, and they have a great candidate in Sen. Dean Martin who is exactly the sort of ethical person who can go in and clean up this mess. Hold on. As it turns out, Sen. Martin has some of his own problems. Ain't that a kick in the head? Martin owns a company called Digital Print Design, which his campaign paid $12,000 dollars to, and it paid his wife's firm $9,000 dollars. I realize that if you own a company that provides a service to your campaign, you must bill the campaign, it's the law. But suspicious bastards like me look at such large amounts essentially going to the candidate, and we have to complain that it smells a bit. Also, an additional $650 was paid to throw a birthday party with lobbyists. At least he wasn't, I dunno, using his marginally qualified, ethically impoverished, political crony staff to give fingerwagging speeches on ethics or something. NB - To be clear, I actually predicted that Petersen would resign. There is still plenty of time for that.|W|P|114083155170061886|W|P|Cut Off One Head, and Two Will Take Its Place|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Eli Blake|W|P|A birthday party with lobbyists? I mean, I'm way too old for a birthday party, but if I had one, who would I invite? My friends? My family? My co-workers? Jack Abramoff?Yeah. I was just talking with one of my twins tonight about the party they will have when they turn ten. Maybe I will insist that they can each invite four of their friends, and then I get to invite four lobbyists to come and sit on the couch and eat cake.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well do not have a flag cake...because that would be a desecration. Unless of course you are George H. W. Bush. Zelph|W|P|Check out my post re: Petersen at Desert Rat Democrat here.I heard secondhand that Petersen once tried to institute mandatory prayer at the State Treasurer's office.
|W|P|speaking of prayer sessions, Andrew Thomas is running one in the Maricopa County Attorney's Office. Actually, I think he calls it a bible study or something similar. Anyone else know of any other elected officials in AZ doing something like this?
|W|P|Man, you guys don't know the half of it with Dean Martin. You failed to point out that most of the money he recieved in campaign contributions came from lobbyist with business before the Senate Finance Committee, which he chairs. Most of his campaign funds find thier way into his own pocket. Think about that, money from lobbyist go through his campaign committee and into his pocket. this is about corruption, legal bribery, this Senator Dean Martin is a crook and now he wants to be state treasurer. |W|P|For those of you who think that Dave Peterson won't resign, please look at the following:http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/blogs/republic/pics/agpage1.jpg
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/blogs/republic/pics/agpage2.jpg
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/blogs/republic/pics/agpage3.jpg
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/blogs/republic/pics/agpage4.jpg
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/blogs/republic/pics/agpage5.jpg
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/blogs/republic/pics/agpage6.jpg
|W|P|I bet no one knew that Sen. Dean Martin had two fund raisers at a nudist colony with his wife. What some politicians will do for money. Zelph|W|P|Petersen son and attorney, Paul D. "Labwiroro" Petersen says Petersen will NEVER resign. More here. Zelph|W|P|I meant hereI have a lot of trouble getting my students to avoid confusing possessive pronouns with contractions, but of course they are working on their GEDs and don't have editors with journalism degrees.|W|P|114082523720519551|W|P|To Which Mr. Bourn Responded, "My Testicles Are None of Your Business."|W|P|prezelski@aol.com"A lot of my development friends say 'your nuts,' " he said, although he stressed he is still committed to the project.
Jane Arizona|W|P|Yay! Old joke time:A guy walks into a shrink's office wearing nothing but cellophane wrap.
The shrink takes a look at him and says, "Clearly, I can see your nuts."
|W|P|Stones and glass houses . . . Your "blurb-o-matic" has the following quote: ''People adore this blog for it's snarky insightful commentary and reporting.'' - Elizabeth Rogers, Former Democratic Nominee for US House, Discourse on Honesty Unicorns Its, it's, your, you're -- grammer and spelling are important, but politics is ever so much more fun.
Tedski|W|P|It's a quote...I'll blame Elizabeth.
There are three items in today's Skinny, and all three include either me or my brother. Oh, and my Mom is in one.
What Jim, you don't like my Dad or something?
Soon, all will be Prezelski. Klaatu barada nikto.|W|P|114065460980526781|W|P|It's a Prezelski Trifecta|W|P|prezelski@aol.com |W|P|Downing is off the deepend!Banjo!
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No kidding, that was incredibly rude of Ted Downing. |W|P|speaking of local weeklies, the phoenix new times ran a piece on the dems today in which Tucson's very own Dennis DeConcini is quoted as saying that he guesses Janet supported him for senator back in the day because John Frank told her to.Has he been talking to Grijalva? And what is it with you people in Baja Arizona? Are you aware that women -- especially that one -- can think for themselves?
Tedski|W|P|I haven't read the New Times article, but I remember that Napolitano was going to run against DeConcini and had to be talked down, probably by people like John Frank.Yeah, you are right though: we have no respect for women down here, we need some of y'all from that oh so progressive valley up North to come down here and give us colonials some lessons.
|W|P|good for you tedski. admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Actually I would not be surprised that the Gov was talked out of it because a lot of people are talked out of running for XYZ reason. But Tucson does not have respect for women, since you know, they just elected two of them to the city council. That is always a clear sign that people do not respect women, when they elect women into positions of power.
|W|P|I dunno about your dad Ted, but he sure does love your mom. |W|P|well sure, elizabeth. they will elect women to office, but only so long as there are men like Grijalva and DeConcini to tell them what to do. there's no harm in electing the poor dears ... so long as they know their place.
|W|P|As far as I'm concerned regarding Ted Downing, he represents his constituents very poorly with his actions in the House. IF he doesn't like it, take it to the people by doing a petition to force a vote by city residents on Rio Nuevo. In addition, he is screwed and he thinks that he will be Paula Aboud in the race. I have a few words for Ted Downing...GOOD LUCK! He doesn't has a snow ball's chance in hell in winning the primary against Paula Aboud. A whinner doesn't become a winner as far as I'm concerned. Go back to Tucson and teach at the UA about what work you did not do in the House. I'm sure UA students wouldn't mind be lectured about your defeated proposals. What Ted Downing said and does is better suited for the college classroom, not for the Legislature. |W|P|To banjo folk: I agree. Kudos to Jimmy for getting such delicious quotes from Downing, the unfabric softener.To anonymous: There have been countless studies indicating that women make better leaders and managers. Maybe this will be more apparent to you as more of the old, male guard are replaced with women. Too bad you don't know your place (e.g. being a man) by hiding behind "anonymous" when you make such bold comments.
To the other anonymous: I disagree. What Mr. Unfabric said isn't even suited for the classroom.
To kralmajales: There's always a honeymoon period. Hopefully, she'll stay responsive if she gets re-elected.
To Ted: Was that really your mom that posted? I wish my mother knew how to just browse the web.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Tom is a good son. :)And Anonymous, grow a set and post under your real name.
|W|P|I thought it was Tom Reade's Mom. Tedski|W|P|My mom doesn't post on here, but Tom Reade's mom does. |W|P|Oh Great Responder:The "know their place" remark was sarcasm. My complaint has been with the sexist remarks about Napolitano from Grijalva and DeConcini. Perhaps you should direct your findings to those two. They are the ones who don't seem to understand that a woman can think for herself.
In their defense, I can somewhat understand (though certainly not excuse) their behavior, having read some of the remarks from certain female (and male) posters here. The highly partisan women those two likely hang around are too blind to call out sexism and hypocricy in their own party. Check out the posts over the Grijalva remark. They'll excuse any drivel that comes out of his mouth because it suits their political worldview.
True feminists call out sexism ... wherever they find it.
|W|P|elizabeth:The beauty of posting anonymously is that it can reveal the sexist (or racist or partisan) assumptions of other posters ... e.g. your assumption that I'm male.
LOL!
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Whether you're a male or female jackass is of no concern to me Anonymous but you might want to learn to read since I never mention your sex.Have a nice day.
|W|P|I stand corrected, lizzy. You're not sexist. Just crude.
Try a finishing course before you run for office again, honey. It'll do you good.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No thanks Jane, now leave Ted's Blog alone. |W|P|To Anon:Stop your crying in Phoenix about Grijalva and Napolitano. They have an understanding and they both said to be ok with each other.
By the way, most of Grijalva's staff is female and would take offense of the implication that they are not feminists or stand for women in any way.
You obviously havent been around long enough to know that. Grow some thick skin and move on!
|W|P|oh, I'm sorry. For some strange reason, I thought that liberals supported free speech and the free exchange of ideas.I totally forgot that only politically correct opinions are welcome among Democrats.
My bad!
I'll take my independent thinking somewhere where it is welcomed.
Thanks for straightening me out about where you people stand!!
Eli Segal, the attorney and entrepreneur who concieved and shepherded AmeriCorps and Welfare-to-Work, died Monday. Segal was a man who believed making the nation a better place is the highest calling, and he did so with dignified and patient force. Former Bill Clinton aide Bruce Reed has a tribute to him in Slate.
I met Segal during the Wesley Clark campaign, which he headed up. A fellow campaign worker was a former AmeriCorps volunteer and Segal was enthusiastic to be able to talk to him. The man was rightly proud of the work he had done.|W|P|114062609781578686|W|P|Eli Segal|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
SEIU staged a press conference in the lobby of the County Administration building yesterday morning to make their case that county employees have the right to vote on "meet and confer" status.
One of the speakers was long time labor stalwart Charlie Salaz, a member of SOAR and the chairman of the District 29 Democratic Club. He made the point that this issue is one of democracy and fairness. Newly signed up SEIU employees also spoke.
By the way, Gabrielle Giffords was there too, and not just skulking in the back. She stood up front with purple shirted SEIU members and spoke to several of them after the event. I haven't heard if the more purportedly "progressive" candidates support the right of county employees to organize, and they weren't there to say either way.
After the press conference, SEIU members went into the Pima County Board of Supervisors hearing room. The "meet and confer" issue was not on the agenda, but they wanted to make their case during the public comment period.
AFSCME also was there. They had a small group wearing their familiar green shirts and sat up near the front where board members were sure to see them. I'm sure it was a nice show, until the room became a sea of purple when SEIU members showed up.
SEIU pressed their case for not only meet and confer, but also for the various programs that they have where they work with management. AFSCME, on the other hand, brought up tired charges against SEIU organizers and members. The charges are insulting to workers and their antics have won them few friends on the board. Once again, AFSCME argued that there is no need for a vote, no need for strong representation. In other words, they were arguing the anti-union management case. Somewhere in New York, Jerry Wurf is turning over in his grave.|W|P|114061853148560856|W|P|SEIU Press Conference|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Oh no Ted...you said nice things about Gabby! Let the games begin!Good on SEIU for at least being blunt about this.
Gabrielle Giffords' campaign today announced that three labor organizations, the Arizona State Association of Electrical Workers, the State Council of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, have all endorsed her candidacy.
Patty Weiss had previously announced that the United Transportation Union endorsed her.
Interestingly, the UTU and BLET both organize different jobs in the same industry. I have found it hard to fathom which are which (and it can change from city to city and railroad to railroad). Origninally, BLET was the Brotherhood of the Footboard and tended to organize the less skilled jobs, and was affiliated with the old Congress of Industrial Organizations. BLET is now an affiliate of the Teamsters, so left the national AFL-CIO with the other Change to Win unions. Arizona Teamsters have signed a "solidarity" agreement with the state AFL-CIO however.
I have always found the myriad of unions associated with the railroads confusing but fascinating. The different unions evolved because of regional, political or even ethnic differences among workers. The rivalries between the people in different parts of the railway industry can resemble those arguments between your two veteran relatives, you know, the one that was in the Army and the one that was in the Marines.
Another major railway union is the Transportation Communications Union, which resulted from the mergers of unions such as A. Philip Randolph's Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks. These unions were important because they were among the first to organize large numbers of African-Americans. As far as I can tell, they haven't yet endorsed.
The best union name ever is the Brotherhood of Maintenence of the Way, also affiliated with the Teamsters. Those are the men and women responsible for maintaining tracks, but not in the yards. If the tracks are in the yards, it's BLET, or maybe TCU, I can't remember...|W|P|114055548903092703|W|P|Giffords Earns Endorsement of Railway Employees; Weiss Earns Endorsement of Railway Employees|W|P|prezelski@aol.com |W|P|Hey now baby, get into my big black carHey now baby, get into my big black car
I wanna just show you what my politics are.
I'm a political man and I practice what I preach
I'm a political man and I practice what I preach
So don't deny me baby, not while you're in my reach.
I support the left, tho' I'm leanin', leanin' to the right
I support the left, tho' I'm leanin' to the right
But I'm just not there when it's coming to a fight.
Hey now baby, get into my big black car
Hey now baby, get into my big black car
I wanna just show you what my politics are
[Cream, 1968]
|W|P|Funny thing happened at the LD-26 meeting. A Giffords supporter got up to boast about the endorsements. Ann Rodriguez asked if any other candidate got interviewed. I guess not, so much for an earned endorsement. Business as usual, I rec'in. Same with the Weiss endorsement. Pretty insignificant. You union members keep your minds open. Your leadership may just have other motives in mind. I think you should ask them why they didn't talk with any other candidate. They certainly don’t wish to give any of the other candidates a chance to represent you. I wonder what they have in mind for the membership.
|W|P|Kralmajales--Obviously the union endorsements provide credibility, money, and/or volunteers. I think what Anonymous is questioning is how "earned" are the endorsements if some of the candidates are not even considered [not even interviewed prior to the endorsement decision]. I think this is what F. Ann Rodriguez voiced concern about at the LD 26 meeting last night (see recent DataPort blog). Another question which Anonymous is touching on, which is a fair question--Do the rank-and-file get to vote on these endorsements OR are these endorsements made solely by the leadership?
|W|P|Obviously there is no requirement for someone or a group to check out all of the candidates before making a selection. I'm just pointing out some non-idealness of the realities of politics. Latas, as will most newscomers to politics, will face this disadvantage; therefore, they will need to have other assets to gain a foothold.
NOTE: Personally, I am glad the most (all?) union money goes to Democratic candidates. However, I also can understand how a union member who is a Republican would be upset seeing his/her union dues going mainly to Democratic candidates--particularly if the rules are such that that worker MUST belong to the union in order to practice his/her profession. It would be fairer if the union had a separate voluntary fund for their PACs.
Please know, if Giffords or Weiss wins in September, I won't have any problem supporting either of them. Take care.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Why has this debate of the lousy job that the Republicans have done as the ruling party in governing degenerated into a discussion between two men on an issue that has nothing to do with them personally?The Republicans (your party) have done a godawful job...the economic turn down was not helped by the most idiotic set of tax cuts ever devised. And the $70 million spent telling people they were going to get a little bit of money was also a waste. Iraq has been a complete waste of time and money and just did more to cause our country to be put in danger then anything else Bush could do.
Katrina was the deliberate result of treating government as though it has no real application in people's lives. This is a very nasty way of "shrinking government to the size that I can drown in a bathtub." Why should the Republicans care about the people who were killed both in New Orleans and outside of it (most of the media forgets the rest of the gulf coast but I have not) they never have any money right?
Your party hates government, America and democracy. If it did like it, it would be more willing to be open, honest and less likely to treat this country as it's private own piggy bank.
|W|P|Yes Kralmajales,It's true... Gabby will throw a long time community leader under the bus for an endorsement.
It is quite unfortunate you can not rebut them and they are telling the awful truth that Giffords will do anything and everything for an endorsement.
Eddie Basha was one of her big names she advertised when she made her big announcement. The unions want to organize Basha's this year and couldn’t stand the fact Eddie Basha was a higher-up on her campaign. They told her to dump him or their endorsement went to another candidate.
She dumped him and got the endorsement.
You take it for what you want.
I personally from this action see that she does not have a backbone.
This is not someone I would want representing me in congress.
Look how quickly she gives into the special interest blackmailing her with an endorsement.
Just imagine the pressure she will face in DC and how quickly she will give into Special Interest. This is not someone we want in DC P.E.R.I.O.D.
|W|P|Has there been a reaction from Eddie Basha? Maybe he asked her to take his name off of the website. There seems to be a lot of speculation out there. Eddie has certainly not been "thrown under the bus." |W|P|No he did not ask her to remove him from her campaign.The Unions DEMANDED her to remove him from her campaign or their endorsement was going somewhere else. End of story. This is not someone who I want representing me. Someone who will give in so quickly to special interest even if they have a good purpose. Think of the pressure she will be under in DC if she gets elected.
|W|P|Why would Eddie Basha ask Giffords to remove his name?
Raúl Grijalva is having his campaign kickoff tommorrow at the El Casino Ballroom, at 26th Street and 3rd Avenue. The festivities start at 5:30 and continue until 8:00, or until the carne asada runs out.
In addition to being a campaign kickoff, it is the Congressman's birthday. He will be turning 29.|W|P|114049479680387501|W|P|Feliz Cumpleaños, Señor Congresista|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I love Carne Asada. And one day, God Willing, I will learn to make it.I wish I could go. I miss everything working at night.
|W|P|Will he have some Anglo-Saxon men making the carne asada for him??? Tedski|W|P|Bangers and Mash, maybe? |W|P|Bangers and mash is almost palatable - but run, fast and far, if they start serving haggis.Though, maybe with the right salsa...
:)
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Haggis is Scottish. I doubt anyone would vote for him if he did that.As for 'real american' wow...either that is someone faking Dittoheadness or someone needs to learn humour.
|W|P|Elizabeth,Wow, you spelled "humor" all British and stuff.
Yes, it was me writing under an assumed name. I just wanted to pre-empt the dittoheads and their lack of sense of irony.
Tedski|W|P|Don't you have legislation to vote against or something? Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Yes Tom, I spell like the British (and Canadians) and stuff at times. You get a brownie for being observant.You can get a cookie if you know why.
|W|P|Real American what are you a Product of Inbreeding? Learn to take a joke Fuck up, where did you go to School Tombstone?
The always polite and tasteful Sen. Jack Harper decided to use his time on the floor of the State Senate to launch an attack on the family of US Senate Candidate Jim Pederson. Pederson's son was recently arrested on drug charges. Harper stated that this is an indication of "corruption in the Pederson household."
Why Harper decided to launch a highly personal (and possibly libelous) attack on Pederson in the State Senate is beyond me, I'm assuming that the other 29 members of that body have made up their minds on the Senate race. Also, I keep hearing from the Republicans what a big loser Pederson is going to be. If so, why attack him at all? Did they ever go after Ed Ranger this way?
Senate President Ken Bennett's son is also involved in legal problems, but I'd challenge anyone to find a Democratic official who made any mention about it. I recieve most of the press releases from the State Democratic party, and I never got one about Bennett's son. You know why? Because it is a private family matter. Until we find out that Bennett, or Pederson, is pulling strings to bail their kids out of trouble, it remains exactly that.
(A few bloggers wrote about the issue, I found it to be in bad taste. Wactivist wrote a bit about it, but most of the vitriol was thrown at the son. The issue was only kept alive on that blog because Clif Bennett's friends kept posting about it.)
Harper's attack was not only condemned by Democrats. Sen. Carolyn Allen, a Republican who only looks moderate and bipartisan for the same reason that Robert Reich would look tall and manly next to Billy Barty and Hervé Villechaize, took offense to the attack and demanded that Harper apologize. Being the class act that he is, he refused.
Word is out that President Bennett is unhappy with Harper's actions. I'll give him credit for that. I don't think that it has only to do with his family's troubles, but it is because he wants the Senate to remain somewhat civil.
Any word from Jon Kyl's camp on this one?
NB - Phx Kid, who seems to think that the Pederson thing is such a big issue that he wrote about it in response to a post about David Petersen, brought up the troubles with the Bush twins.
Then Pederson will get as much privacy as the Bush twin's got when they could not stop drinking in public.Um, I don't recall John Kerry making the twins an issue, although I do remember Rush Limbaugh making fun of Chelsea Clinton and the Gore daughters. That aside, think about what you said for a second: they deserve privacy when they are drunk in public.|W|P|114048120371042609|W|P|Wow, His Name Already Contains Most of "Jackass"|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
|W|P|TEDSKI--What "excuse" did Mr. Statesman Harper provide for bringing this up on the floor? Do you know what the segue/context was?
With 1000+ bills, ELL, immigration problems, the budget, the uninsured working poor and other issues to deal with, it's amazing that Harper thought that this was the important item to bring to the floor today.
Tedski|W|P|Some gnome is going to send it to me when they get it. Eli Blake|W|P|According to Charles Goyet this morning, Bennett personally phoned Pederson to apologize on behalf of the Senate.Keep in mind that Jack Harper is the guy who once called into a talk show that Slade Mead was on and pretended to be someone else (although Slade recognized him from his voice and called him on it.)
You know, poll after poll after poll has shown that Americans are sick and tired of all the partisanship and want elected officials to work together to solve problems. I don't know if it would work in Harper's solid Republican district, but I can conceive of an opponent running on the platform of pointing out some of these blantantly partisan attacks and dirty tricks by Harper, then pledging to work with whoever else is elected to solve problems 'like the people expect us to do.'
Maybe a pipe dream, but I've always wondered how a real straight shooting candidate would do against some of these demogogues.
|W|P|I love Hervé Villechaize. He was one hot french dworf. Michael Bryan|W|P|Probably the reason Jack did his dirty from the floor of the legislature is because his rant most likely was slanderous. There is a common law legal exception to slander for anything said in by a legislator in the course of debate on the floor of a duly constituted and in-session meeting of the legislature. Harper's hiding behind his position to character assassinate a political opponent and escape possible legal consequences.Calling him a jackass demeans jackasses. Being a Democrat, I have a fondness for jackasses, them being so close to donkeys. No, Harper is pure pacyderm poop.
A constituent contacted me at a Knockout Pills show...|W|P|114044601218197529|W|P|At Least It Wasn't F.A.N.S.S.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Folks at the capitol are saying that the troubles in David Petersen's office are worse than reported and he may resign before his term is up in January.
This creates a strange situation. The Governor appoints a replacement should there be a vacancy, but the replacement would have to be a Republican. I'm putting my money on Betsy Bayless. I really have no reason to say that other than intuition, but Bayless is a capable Republican that the Governor has shown she's comfortable with.
There is no reason to think that the two Republicans that have already expressed an interest in running, Rep. Laura Knaperek and Sen. Dean Martin, would change their minds if Petersen were to leave early. In fact, the Republican mahouts would love to take out any Republican that Napolitano would appoint. I wonder, however, if they really want a primary between two of their legislative leaders. Heck, I'd be glad to see them both as far away from lawmaking as possible, even if it means one gets a nice desk and better salary.
My understanding was that Knaperek was their choice to run for Sen.Harry Mitchell's seat. Mitchell's seat has to be part of any calculus that leads to their dream of a "veto-proof" majority. They must be putting some pressure on her to stop a possible primary with Martin (especially if it splits the vote with a Napolitano appointee), and also to keep her in what is a must win race for them for Senate.
NB - I reported before that the Democratic party hadn't made recruitment for the Treasurer's race a priority. I recieved an e-mail stating that there is a candidate: Richmond J. Vincent, a bank executive from Phoenix. I hope he becomes a little more active. Rich, the iron is hot right now!
By the way, Knaperek is the one who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to allow a vote to modernize our state's spousal rape laws. Just so y'all know.|W|P|114031524693263362|W|P|Poorly Sourced Rumor of the Day|W|P|prezelski@aol.com |W|P|Wasn't is true that George H.W. Bush's son was arrested for drunk driving and this info didn't come out until years later (during the campapign)? Wasn't it also true that George W. Bush would not answer the reporter's question "Have you ever tried cocaine?"? Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Knaperak is going for Senator Mitchell's seat? This is the first I have heard of that.The word I keep hearing is that Mark Thompson is going for it. He had at one point filed the preliminary paperwork. I could not find anything regarding the filing on the Sec. of State's website so he may have changed his mind.
If Laura goes for that seat, who is going to run for the state rep ones on the Republican side? (Rhetorical question, I can and will ask Bruce about it.)
|W|P|To PHX KID--[laughter]
Yeah--That doesn't sound too good for a candidate. However, didn't state Senator Bennett's son get in trouble with the law recently? I don't blame Bennett for what his son does, nor do I blame Pedersen for what his son does.
At least Pedersen didn't shoot his friend in the face!!!
|W|P|No he didn't shoot his friend but his son may have just shot him in the foot. Tedski|W|P|Phx Kid-Of course I won't be making jokes about it, because I am a partisan weasel.
|W|P|That's true! His son has VERY bad timing. The damage may depend on whether the gory details come out and the story has legs. More likely this is just a blip.
Michael|W|P|Knaperek wasn't alone in opposing a repeal to our archaic and ridiculous marital rape law. That wingnuttiest of wingnuts, Warde Nichols, actually said, out loud during the committee in which he, Knaperek and Mark Anderson all voted against the repeal, that a woman becomes the property of her husband when she marries and therefore is subject to having sex with him anytime the husband wants.Somebody slapped some sense into those ninnies, because Nichols moved to reconsider in committee a few weeks later and the repeal passed out of committee unanimously.
Still, a perfect example of the attitudes of that crew - including Laura Knaperek. Makes me shudder to think what she'd do in a Senate seat or in the Treasurer's Office. Not that Dean Martin is much of a bargain either...
|W|P|Didn't Ted Downing vote against the Spousal Rape Bill? the byce man|W|P|I personally don't get why K-Nap would want to be treasurer. How can she ensure men don't get arrested for raping their wives? Michael|W|P|Yeah, Ted did vote against the repeal. He said it was based on some wrong information one of the bill's opponents gave him just before the vote. He apologized profusely. Make what you want of that. He's been solid on every other piece of sexual violence legislation. And the margin was rightly large enough that his one misplaced vote didn't matter on this one. Still...
Sen. Dean Martin has taken out papers to run for State Treasurer, this at a time that David Petersen is talking about leaving the office amid criticism of his management style. His office has been called "a mess" and the "morale is horrible," and that's from his own staffers.
I'm wondering if Rep. Jerry Lewis can be brought over here to be Martin's running mate.
Despite the troubles in the office, the State Democratic party did not consider recruiting candidates for the office a priority. Sen. Ruth Solomon was defeated by Petersen by less than 30,000 votes, a bit more than three percent of the vote. There is no reason to think that a good Democrat couldn't win this office, especially with a strong Governor and the turmoil in the office.
It is a hard office to recruit for, however; treasuer (or most of the constitutional offices for that matter) doesn't lead to either fame or higher office. In many states, state treasurer is a ticket to higher office. Sen. Mary Landrieu, for example, was treasurer of Louisiana before getting elected to the Senate. We, however, have never had such a tale. The only treasuer one can name is Dan Garvey, governor from 1948-1951, had been treasurer not of the state but of Pima County, but also served as Secretary of State and became governor on the death of Sidney P. Osborn. In 1990, Republican Treasurer Ray Rottas attempted to move up to secretary of state from the treasurer's office, but was trounced by Richard Mahoney, a well connected attorney who had never held elected office in an otherwise middling year for Democrats.
Something about our state's political structure prevents these offices from being effective springboards for higher office, but that never seems to stop the Republicans from being able to recruit candidates for them.
Espresso Pundit also reported on the shake-up in Jim Pederson's campaign. Greg, you got scooped by Wactivist on that one. About a month ago, Pederson brought on a new team. The old team seemed to be spinning its wheels. The campaign has already been doing a much better job of getting the candidate out there and building support. They already have a headquarters down here (not open yet, but they have space rented), and the polling numbers look pretty good, despite the lackluster campaign. I mean, Jon Kyl is polling at 52% against Pedersen, and the campaign has sucked until recently. What does that say about Kyl's campaign?
Espresso Pundit takes particular note that new Pederson campaign Pooh-Bah Mario Diaz has been called "bare knuckled" and "cut-throat." Yeah, and? Cut-throat operatives are a problem for Republicans now?
NB - I've heard Diaz called worse, but I won't repeat it here because he's bare knuckled and cut-throat.|W|P|114018631915594999|W|P|That's Amore!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Jeff Strain|W|P|So do the Republicans have no one but "arch-conservatives" to offer the state?I've been wondering the same thing since about 2000, regarding both the state and federal level.
|W|P|mario diaz is the devil dressed in men's petite clothing from burlington coat factory. |W|P|how do you know it's men's clothing? |W|P|On the subject of bare-knuckled advisors and hypocrisy...One of the many things that convinces me that Bush 43 is not the internally-practicing reborn Christian that he professes to be is his close relationship with Rove--Rove has no scruples about his methods. He's not bare-knuckled--he uses knives.
When I was young, I knew a lot of reborn practicing Christians--they were decent, strong, good people and they wouldn't have come within 5 feet of Rove--Rove is the antithesis of what they stand for. This is one of the many things that tells me that Bush's religiosity is either self-delusion or knowing duplicity--or some of both.
Also, Bush allowed the lying slime campaign against McCain in South Carolina to continue without speaking out against it. Bush didn't have the integrity to disavow it. Bush may participate in prayer breakfasts and talk about faith and Jesus, but Bush is no internally-practicing reborn Christian.
I wonder how many of these religious-professing Congressmembers and Senators have been bullshitting their way up the political ladder [and padding their pockets along the way]?
|W|P|So he's devil...hey but it will take the devil to win that race! More power to him. |W|P|To PHX KID--Likewise for the left.
|W|P|The definitions of "operative"--include the words--efficient, secret agent, espionage, surgical, capable of producing an effect. So isn't "cut-throat" already implied? |W|P|To PHX KID--You're right re the clean elections and the state government. But clean elections is good in that it encourages potential candidates who are not inside either party's bubble to run--new faces/ideas.
If it is true that a fetus at 20+ weeks experiences pain when aborted, then I don't know Ted Downing reasoning. Also, I don't know Ted Downing.
|W|P|phx kid - You are certainly correct that Clean Elections has given a huge boost to the ideological wackos that that are the base of the Republican party. However, I think it is premature to declare this a permanent or even an enduring effect.
Remember that the current Republican majority has been built by quietly organizing the radical right at the grassroots level, mostly through evangelical churches, while publicly minimizing their role, and branding the Republican party as the party of strength and responsibility - the party of grownups - as distinct from the crazy, socialist, long-haired left.
What Clean Elections has done in Arizona is to rip away this mask of respectability and moderation, and expose the true face of the Republican party. And recent opinion polls seem to show that the public is repulsed and running left:
Over 90% want more investment in education.
Over 80% want universal health care.
Over 70% want to raise the minimum wage.
Less than 40% want to ban gay marriage.
Less than 30% want to use the budget surplus for a tax cut.
I particularly emphasize the last point because anyone familiar with Arizona politics knows how remarkable that is.
So I think it's too soon to judge Clean Elections on this point. Remember, this is still a very new program. This year will only be the fourth time the system has been used, and I think it is going to be a very interesting year.
|W|P|With numbers like these, then why do we have so many extremely conservative Republicans dominating the state legislature and Congress? Are the DEMs not offering up good candidates in these LDs and CDs? Michael|W|P|There's an even simpler explanation:With the way legislative districts are drawn in Arizona, legislative elections are won or lost in the primaries. And the people most likely to vote in a primary are the hardcore partisans, the wackos (myself included) on either end of the spectrum. You want moderate leadership? Find a way to motivate moderate voters to exercise their rights in the primaries.
Until then you'll only get the wingnuts who only venture out of their bunkers and from under their tinfoil hats to vote or brandish guns at the border. And the cycle will continue.
|W|P|PHX KID--There are a lot of us who would be referred to as "moderates" who are very passionate about our politics. Do you notice how most governors of either party tend to be a little more moderate than the party activists? It is easier to be ideologically pure when you don't have the responsibility of actually governing, developing reality-based policies, etc.
|W|P|KRALMAJALES--I've heard from a reliable source that Jim Click and Don Diamond are supporting Huffman. The only time I saw Huffman was on Arizona Illustrated with Bill Buckmaster [one-on-one] recently. He had a dead fish persona. Never smiled once. And no gravitas. But, from what I've heard, Huffman is adept at playing hard ball.PHX KID--I have very mixed feelings about abortion. I'd say Yes to several things you listed and no/uncertain re the rest. The reality is that teenagers are going to have sex; therefore, I support education of teenagers re responsible behavior with regards to sex and the consequences of irresponsible sex. [abortions "safe/legal/rare"]
|W|P|If it’s true that Huffman has Click and Diamond behind him then the GOP primary is going to be expensive. Hellon is a credible candidate with Ray Carroll as his campaign manager and Paul Ash on his side. He also has a lot of long time party insiders behind him, ie Jackie Egan, John Munger, Linda Barber, Toni Hellon, etc. I don’t see a big difference on the issues between Hellon and Huffam so it may get personal between them. |W|P|I'll be very interested to see how far to the right Huffman/Hellon position themselves [and on what issues] to win the primary. |W|P|What do the CD 8 candidates think of this situation? |W|P|Does any other state or county agency in Arizona have a binding agreement? No? Why not? Perhaps it's against state law/legal opinons? |W|P|I believe other governmental agencies have agreements (TUcson Police Officers Association), the TUcson Fire Fighters, and within school districts, you got TEA, AFT and CWA; so there is a way for unions to coexist within governmental entities ... Eli Blake|W|P|If they fail to get this vote through, the real losers won't be either of the unions, it will be the workers themselves.Besides, union organizing is like anything else-- if you dawdle and don't push forward with the duties of your job, then somebody else will step in and do it their way.
Tedski|W|P|Anonymous-No county agency has "meet and confer," but other Government agencies do, such as TUSD and the City of Tucson. Mostly because it has never been tried.
There was an opinion issued in the seventies that supported meet and confer status in Pima County, but unfortunately, no union acted on it. Near as I can tell, there haven't been sufficient changes in the statute to think that there really could be a total reversal like what the County Attorney is claiming.
|W|P|There was a legal opinion issued by the attorney general in 1987 making the 70's opinion null and void. |W|P|Also, the County is an extension of the State, whereas Cities and School Districts are not, so justifying the County's ability to have a Union because City's and District's do is not a valid argument. |W|P|I can't believe someone like Tedski who is so knowledgeable and has a brother for a State Rep. isn’t aware of the regulations from the state level. |W|P|This battle has now moved beyond the spitting contest between AFSCME and SEIU. The rights of employees to organize in this state is at stake.Perhaps this is SEIU's fault for pushing this agenda? They reap what the sow? Opened up a can of worms? In all reality nothing is going to change. This has been the practice by State and County Agencies for eons here in Arizona, not by choice but merely by law.
Let’s review: Voters elect State Senators and House Members as well as attorney generals. This can only be changed by an ARS change (state house/senate) or a new attorney general ruling overturning yet another previous AG opinion. (how silly would that look, multiple opinions by various AG’s over a period of 30 years.)
Perhaps SEIU should be pushing for a State Statue change in Phoenix.
|W|P|a lot of disinformatinal crap on here.There has never been a "ruling" on this.
In 1979 the Attorney General issued an OPINION, which was something that did NOT happen in 1987. In 1987 the AG specifically DECLINED to opine on the issue. This seems to be the crux of LaWall's non-opinion; that because one AG issued an opinion and another declined to do so, this represents some kind of legal contradition.
That's what regular folks call "lawyerly obfuscation" and is known in the vernacular as "a steaming pile of crap".
|W|P|I'll put money that SEIU flops on their face with this issue.Union Workers don’t need radical extremist in a Union. They need rational Unions that know how to work to get things done.
We all know how effective radical extremism is in the end don’t we?
|W|P|Go away SEIU! The Pima County Democratic Party made use of your "Barney Bus" not Pima County Government. The taxpayers of Pima County don't need to have their government scratching your back as a payback for the bus. |W|P|Ha.You say you'd "put money" on it but you post anonymously.
Tell you what - the host of this site knows me, and I'll hpaapily take your money. How much? $100?
SEIU is the fastest growing union in the US. They grew by over 200,000 members in 2005, their best year ever. So I'm not sure what you mean by "get things done".
Nor am I sure what you mean by "radical extremeists". SEIU's politics are very, very simple: Providing and protecting high-quality services, and raising standards and improving working conditions for the people who provide them. That's it. And they support politicians who support them.
I've been getting e-mails and posts from people who claim not to understand why I support Gabrielle Giffords. Of course, I've said it a thousand times on here (okay, not a thousand...so don't bother writing a correction).
I was thinking of writing a post saying that I only will support candidates that I've hung out with at Hotel Congress. This would create a difficulty should Jonathan Paton change his mind and decide to run; my vote would be up for grabs. Such overly snarky entries seem to be lost on my more irony challenged posters.
So here it goes: Giffords has built an impressive progressive record in the state legislature. She has been able to do this despite serving with some of the most retrograde, neanderthal characters you will find in 21st century American politics. I have yet to see an example of Giffords selling out and voting with the far right just so she can get her name on something that passes. We have had a lot of Democratic legislators that fall into this trap, including some current ones that are beloved by progressives.
Her record has earned her a "MVP" from the Sierra Club, as well as endorsements from folks like Clague Van Slyke, Steve Farley and Bill Risner, who have been active in progressive politics for years. These aren't people who need to "sell out" for political advantage.
Yeah, she is close to some people that I'm not a big fan of. And yes, the DLC likes her. Consider this for a second: those ubiquitous lists that the DLC puts out of rising stars or whatever term they use have also included people like Barack Obama and Gavin Newsome, not exactly the heralds of some Dixiecrat movement. By the way, Howard Dean was a favorite of the DLC throughout his tenure as governor too.
When an elected official is willing to stand up for the right things, I feel that I should stand with them. If we are willing to throw someone with an otherwise great record overboard just because there is a new face that says all the right things, who the heck is going to stick with us? If building a strong progressive record isn't enough to get support, why would someone in office even bother?
I saw this most strikingly in the Paul Hackett-Sherrod Brown race in Ohio. Brown had built a record that looked a heck of a lot more like fellow Ohioan Dennis Kucinich than Joe Lieberman, but had a primary opponent in Hackett, a more conservative candidate. For some reason, progressive activists classified Hackett as the more liberal candidate, and Brown as some establishment sell-out. A quick perusal of Brown's record would show this to be ridiculous. When Hackett dropped out yesterday, I recieved several e-mails from people claiming that conservative Democrats forced him from the race to help their candidate. Eh?
I think we do well with any of the three leading candidates, Giffords, Patty Weiss or Jeff Latas. However, I'd like to stick with someone with a proven record. She has shown that she can do the job, and should be rewarded for the job she's done with my vote.
NB - I'll get an e-mail from someone saying "You didn't mention Alex Rodriguez." Yeah, I didn't. I don't see his candidacy going anywhere. The Statehood Day edition of the Arizona Daily Star featured a story called "'A-Rod' Has a Simple Plan to Win Kolbe's Seat in the House." The article itself didn't feature any details of the plan, for all I know they were refering to what bands were in his CD collection. The only "simple plan" that leads to a Rodriguez victory involves arranging for Weiss, Latas and Giffords to go on a hunting trip with the Vice-President.|W|P|114010324337826682|W|P|Why I Am Supporting Gabrielle Giffords|W|P|prezelski@aol.com |W|P|Ohhh, the A-Rod comment was snarky Ted--but damn funny! Bwhahaha!!!! |W|P|Excellent, Tedski!That was the most well-reasoned argument I've heard any Democrat make for a candidate in quite some time.
It's about time someone made sense in this state. I want you.
|W|P|A-Rod will finish ahead of Latas. He's the only proven vote-getter in the race other than Giffords and he received more votes than her last time they ran. |W|P|Tedski - I def want to stay out of this ... but let's be fair.When Barak Obama found out he was listed as a DLC guy, what did he do? He wrote them and forced them to remove his name.
Gabby put it up on her webpage.
I'm not saying Barak is right and Giffords is wrong - hell the DLC pointed to her as a rising star - which is clearly true. I'm just saying pretending like Gabby didn't like the DLC back is a little misleading. Before this whole congress thing, she was pretty proud of her DLC affiliation. If the plan is to pretend that isn't the case -- THAT is wrong.
I personally will vote for a candidate who I trust and respect even if we dont' agree on everything before someone who is just lockstep with my views without those other qualities.
I just hope this doesn't devolve into a "progressive" off where the way we decide who is the most "progrssive" is by counting the number of times people use the word in campaign lit, the number of progressives who amke an endorsement, and the number of progressive organizations that support someone.
My point - If Gabby's record and experience and leadership is enough - focus on that. Her supporters should stop trying to wash away the DLC thing with Spin because it is there and won't go away. Use it - don't try to hide from it.
|W|P|Howard is not a DLCer now, why? He knows the truth is why. We also know the truth about Gabby. Progressive, I DON'T THINK SO. I have looked at her voting recorded when she was actually there to vote. Maybe if she were more interested in Arizonans instead of traveling to China, she may have gotten may respect. Go Patty. |W|P|I don't know, I think Gabby is pretty progressive for a Republican. |W|P|To TEDSKI--Some of your reasoning is problemmatic:
Giffords was a state representative--she resigned her position--she chose to get off of one boat in order to compete to get onto a bigger boat. Therefore, by supporting another candidate over her to get onto a new boat, no one is "throwing her overboard."
Your words imply that she deserves to be viewed as already being on the boat. Yet, at the two previous forums, she has been saying that she is running because we're facing really dire problems now [with the implication that therefore we need someone like her in Congress]. If she really believes that things are so dire that we need someone like her in Congress, then Kolbe's decision to not run for re-election shouldn't have affected her decision to run in CD 8. Yet [unlike Latas and Schacter] she didn't step up to the plate until Kolbe made his decision public. Thus, her statement on why she is running does not ring true.
The last phrase in your statement "If building a strong progressive record isn't enough to get support, why would someone in office even bother?" is absurd. She HAS gotten support of the LD 28 voters by being re-elected to the state senate. Perhaps you're implying that the main purpose of building a progressive record is the expectation of continuing to move up the political food chain?
Re Hackett--There is irony in what you say--If Brown is the more liberal candidate, with a record that looks "a lot more like fellow Ohioan Dennis Kucinich than Joe Lieberman," and Hackett comes off more conservative than Brown [along with sounding like a true straight-talk-express, which voters are yearning for], then WHY do the party leaders think that Brown would have a better chance then Hackett in winning a very Reddish state like Ohio???
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ted, I wonder how much the anger over your supporting Giffords is related to the view you are more like the press then not?But you have a good reason to support her and you have never tried to get anyone to not support the other strong candidates so I cannot se why this is a problem. Then I remember: Democrats and cats.
Jeff Strain|W|P|It's one thing if someone disagrees with you and explains his or her opinion in comments, e.g. "Actually, I like Latas because he majored in Aerospace Engineering and Aerospace Engineers rock!" What I find strange is people getting angry with you for expressing your political opinion in your own blog, e.g. "How dare you endorse her! What are you thinking?" |W|P|To Elizabeth Rogers--I love Ted's threads because he provides facts and exposes discrepancies (like the press is supposed to)with wit/humor(so unlike the press)and reasonableness. I don't have a problem with Ted supporting Giffords. [If Giffords win, I'll support her 100%.] What I do have a problem with is a few of the illogical or absurd arguments he made to explain his support.
I agree with your remark re the Democrats/cats. That's why it concerns me to see bloggers blogging blatantly-untrue remarks--"Giffords is conservative" [perhaps this bloggers is coming from the far left of the spectrum?]--or petty remarks--"Patty will fall on her face". It seems that some people are hardening themselves into positions such that they may not be willing to put their full support behind whoever wins the Democratic primary.
Lastly, Ted might want to add that Napolitano is DLC-associated. The DLC IS part of the Democratic party, that is, if you believe that the Democratic moderates have a place in the party.
|W|P|Hey Ted! You forgot Francine damnit! |W|P|cc burro asked:WHY do the party leaders think that Brown would have a better chance then Hackett in winning a very Reddish state like Ohio???
Because Brown has won several elections in Ohio and Hackett has won NONE.
|W|P|I don't understand this alleged aversion to the DLC. From what I understand, it's not seen as liberal ... er progressive ... enough but as Tedski points out, so called progressives like Dean have been affiliated with DLC. And then there are the Clintons. Remember them? Clinton pere founded the thing and Clinton mere is a leader in the organization.
You anti-DLCers got a problem with Bill and Hill??
|W|P|RE DLC--I think that some progressives dislike the DLC because of the DLC's stance on the Iraq War and NAFTA and concerns re DLC's sources of funding.
I recommend that you go to the DLC's website and read their proposals. The DLC'ers are moderate Democrats--not "Republican lite". I particularly agree with their view that the DEMs need to produce/articulate a well thought-out, positive, compelling, reality-based progressive platform if the DEMs are to win over a majority of the electorate--not just be anti-Bush, anti-Republican, the anti-party.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|To CC:I support Gabby because I saw her speak once and she seemed nice. That is the only reason I support her. Makes no sense either. :)
Of course I am stuck in Hayworth Hell so you know...my support means less then Tim's.
|W|P|Well, maybe you should try and hear some of the other candidates before forming your baised view on how "nice" someone is. I heard there are plenty of "Nice" people out there and I think most of the candidates in the CD-8 race are nice. Maybe you should be a little more open minded before you support someone that maybe nice but a poor choice. Life experience far out weighs her shoty voting record. |W|P|It's not a "shoty" record. She's the only one with a record and it obviously makes sense to look at it. Keep in mind who she had to work within the legislature. She did a great job for her constituents. |W|P|Elizabeth--It makes perfect sense. The first step in supporting a candidate is thinking a candidate is "nice"-- that is, decent, fair, trustworthy--otherwise someone will never support that candidate. [Ideally, the next step should be checking out that candidate's issue stances/values to see you agree with the candidate's on your major issues.]
ANONYMOUS-RIGHT-AFTER ELIZABETH--If you want someone to support your candidate, you better lay off the vitriol. That kind of tone is never going to win someone over to your candidate and, in fact, is likely to bias someone against your candidate. People are NOT attracted to a candidate/campaign they view as nasty. You say that Giffords has a "shoty" record, which is a meaningless criticism since you provide no backup--no specifics.
Elizabeth--
J.D. is a piece of work. I'm amazed at how many pieces of work Arizona also has in the state house.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well, Anonymous, the time I met Gabby was at a small dinner put on by the Democratic Women of Arizona club. She did not have to be there and I do not remember seeing any other people in the CD8 race there or at other events like that.I can support whoever I want to and it does not matter, *I* am not in CD8.
|W|P|KRALMAJALES--[laughter]. Nah. I'm very happy with the candidate that I'm already supporting--Jeff Latas.
On a different, related subject--Any idea why the Tucson newspapers didn't cover the DFA forum? Is CJ Karamargin all they have to cover all of politics? Just one reporter?
|W|P|There is "conspiracy" on behalf of Patty Weiss. The Star simply doesn't cover political news - or the Legislature - or neighborhood events - or anything of note in Tucson.For example, Rep. Phil Lopes has taken on universal health care with virtually no notice from his hometown paper. He also stood up to the Republicans for freezing citizens out of legislative committee hearings. It was in every newspaper in the state, including the Citizen. But not the Star. See today's AZCentral for some news.
|W|P|Nice plug, but I have one question WHAT RECORD? What has she DONE? The only thing she has a good claim to is the ability to raise money. Not win against a well-funded Republican. |W|P|"You anti-DLCers got a problem with Bill and Hill??"YES!!! And if you DON'T have a problem with them, you aren't paying attention.
Have you checked out Hill's votes lately?
Well, to Bill's credit, he was the best Republican president we have had in the last 30 years.
And by the way, the DLC still is the Clinton org and they are still pulling the strings. If you believe in citizens' power, than you can't support the Clintons.
Just based on these comments I think I will support Weiss. There seems to be a big void of intellectual capital in this Party that she could provide.
I will support Giffords if she gets the nomination. I have supported her all these years in LD28. I have to say though, I have been so disappointed in her at her speaking engagements. She didn't give one good answer that showed she understood the issues at the DFA forum, everything to her is 'complex', and in speaking to her personally she comes across average in every way: average intelligence, average depth, average human understanding, average integrity. I expected that someone who served in the house and senate would be a lot more knowledgeable and confident in her positions. I get a distinct Kerry feeling about her.
I will take average over what the Republicans have to offer, but I would rather aim for someone a little more exceptional in all regards.
Of course there is always Raytheon Rodriguez for the pretend Democrats who try to justify that one.
|W|P|Roger, I don't think there is a bias because I certainly haven't heard anything about Weiss's campaign. I think it is more that reporters here don't cover politics in general and if Patty does get anything it is all about being a former newscaster which I doubt voters care about one way or another. Latas is the only one getting coverage and it is probably because he is running a smart campaign and getting a lot of internet support which pushes the attention up to the mainstream media. Weiss and Giffords could learn a lot from the Latas campaign. He also has some really well respected activists supporting him which is something that brings in even more support.
I don't think I will vote for Latas because he seems too limited but I do give him a lot of credit for being out there and running a good campaign. If he would have chosen to start out in a state campaign and prove himself first since he neither has Gabby's experience or Weiss's community leadership I think he could have easily won any state office he chose.
|W|P|"Elizabeth Rogers said..."Loved your comment about the 'nice' thing! You are being honest. I suspect most people support a candidate and it has nothing to do with their background or even positions but just a gut instinctive "I like them or I don't."
I am just surprised anyone can support any candidate this early because I have talked to 5 of the candidates in length, researched what I could find on them, and still feel like I don't know any of the candidates well enough to throw support behind them.
I like Latas's charisma and campaign strategy but don't think his talk matches his walk so I don't think I can get behind him. I like Weiss's life experience, intelligence and community involvement but I think she actually might be a little too brainy for our CD8 voters (sorry to insult us all) and would like to see her sound less 'nice' as another blogger said. Gabby I have issues with on some of her votes which I plan to research in full for the past 2 years, but I also think she has the money, endorsements, and the shallowest of all reasons...she is really cute! So, I think it is down to Weiss and Giffords for me but still way to early to tell and Latas might change my mind.
|W|P|LAST ANONYMOUS--How do you think Latas' walk doesn't match his talk? That comment is surprising to me because his honesty AND integrity is one of the main reasons I like him.
I have been very critical about the legislature's lack of support for higher education. It looks like Russell Pearce is finally doing something about it. Pearce's bill, HB 2583, would mandate the display of Old Glory in all college classrooms in Arizona. HB 2583 passed a house committee yesterday.
Good to see that Pearce and the House's Universities, Community Colleges and Technology Committee isn't distracted by such side issues as the lack of availability of lower division classes, the difficulties in obtaining financial aid or losing qualified instructors due to low pay. Darnit, we'll have flags!
NB - Why no money here? Isn't that an unfunded mandate? Maybe a tax credit would take care of that.
Why are private and parochial schools excluded from our laws requiring the display of the flag in primary and secondary school classrooms? This lack of patriotism has to stop or our state's private and parochial schools will be graduating terrorists, anarchists and maybe even cubists.
No word yet on whether Ron Gould wants to require the display of the Confederate Battle Flag. Or require silly mustaches.|W|P|114001530761010828|W|P|Now, That's Some Action|W|P|prezelski@aol.com |W|P|What a great idea, kralmajales! I'm sure Pearce could get someone to do that. After all, isn't he the one who found some Phoenix businessman to repair the flagpole at the Capitol? |W|P|Pearce constantly makes a big stink about saving the taxpayers money. How does this legislation do that?While it is a nice idea, money that buys flags for every classroom would be better spent tutoring lagging children or buying more textbooks.
Eli Blake|W|P|Talk about putting a bandaid on your elbow as a plan to cure cancer. shrimplate|W|P|Bulk purchases of Made-in-The-People's-Republic-of-China cheap cotton Old Glories, anyone? Or maybe Pakistani sweatshops can provide a better deal. |W|P|The legislation requires that the flags are "manufactured" in the U.S.--God forbid they come from the same Mexican factory that manufactured those border guard uniforms!!! Renzi will shit again! Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Actually Phx Kid, this ALSO might surprise such a sharp fella as yourself...but most of us can concentrate on more then one topic at a time...which is why I was able to do my job and find out the Veep was illegally hunting!Shocking to hear I know.
|W|P|kralmajales,It's interesting you should point out that Munsil article attacking the Goldwater Institute. In an interview with Munsil on Espresso Pundit, Munsil praises the Institute and says he has even financially supported it.
Hmm....
P.S. Check out azcentral.com for a blog by columnist Richard Ruelas. He was apparently standing right in front of Munsil when he wasn't doing anything in particular, but Munsil wouldn't even talk to Ruelas. And yet, the Espresso Pundit gets lunch and an interview.
Interesting.
|W|P|I was preparing to teach an Elder Hostel class in the room next to where this Munster person was getting ready to do whatever it is he did and saw all the posters and stickers, so I put on my GIFFORDS FOR CONGRESS badge and stood in the doorway. Got a few glances from the suits but then the candidate himself, obvious by his perfect teeth and shaved-head ear-wired bodyguard, started to enter the room. "Wrong room, buddy" sez I and he smiled off in another direction. He paused, turned, pointed, smiled and said 'GIFFORDS!" and then continued.Hats off to him, he can read!
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Phx Kid, in politics nowadays everything is open.Perhaps at one point it was not, I have only be around for 26 (soon to be 27) years but I have watched as Americans, with the help of people like Newt, Karl and Lee start, to talk about every little thing a politician does if it negative.
If the rumours about Bush 41 were true and he did have an affair, no one talked about it on our side but the last Democratic President was accused of everything from murdering more then one close friend to raping a woman to the point of biting through her lip. There were even videos sold about this.
Now our talking about the Veep illegally hunting and accidently shooting one of his hunting partners is no where near that. For one thing, it actually is true. For another, it is pertinant because it is one more example of a White House that considers itself above having to explain anything to us "little people."
Also the Dems have no need to formulate a message yet. We still have six months to work on it and then shock all you Republicans with it. *smirk*
|W|P|Well, it's no wonder you lost to JD with that lazy attitude (and smirk). Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Sure Anonymous. *rolls eyes* |W|P|I have perused a bunch of the issue fact sheets at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) website. Quite an eye-opener. These CAP people probably say that they "hate the sin but not the sinner". Well, you should see their fact sheets on homosexuality, which reek of, well, hatred. Instead of going after gay people, this group should apply their passion towards eradicating lying [Satan's foremost attribute?]politicians. Have any of you heard ANY fact- and logic-based argument as to how gay marriage "hurts" the institution of marriage?
|W|P|Kralmajales--Jeff Latas HAS taken a strong stand on this issue in writing [go to his website, Issues, then Civil Rights, 2nd paragraph].
"Further, I am against discrimination based on gender, sexual preference, or sexual identity. I oppose any amendment to the constitution defining marriage. I believe that if the government chooses to recognize and reward unions between two people for tax or survivorship benefits, it should do so regardless of the gender of the two people involved."
This is one of the many reasons I support him.
[Under the "Issues" sections of the websites for Weiss, Giffords, Rodriguez, and Schacter, I found nothing on gay rights--however, presently there isn't a lot of stuff in these issues sections. I expect that these candidates will add meat/specificity over time.]
If that's the way he treats his friends, what chance do the rest of us have?|W|P|113978966645079695|W|P|Nice Shooting, Mr. Vice-President|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Tedski|W|P|Who ever said I made fun of Cheney for hunting? I've been hunting, and my father is a hunter. |W|P|To phx kid--I don't think Tedski meant any low blow by this. And I'm sure if Cheney's friend had been maimed for life or died that Tedski would not have written thusly about this event.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Hey Phx Kid,This might surprise you but in politics, people sometimes insult the other guy. I seem to remember some Republican guy who is in a very high office saying to a Democrat guy also in a very high office to "Go bleep himself." This was on the United States Senate floor when both are in high office and presumably capable of being civil to one another.
Ted simply stated that Cheney did something not nice to a friend since the guy was shot by the Veep.
|W|P|Wow. Cheney is still alive? |W|P|Hey phx kid - If somebody died or was seriously injured, it's fodder for a grand jury, or at least a coroner's inquest.
Nobody died? It's fodder for every comedian or person with even a bit of a sense of humor.
Also, you wrote "Wait until some liberal ...makes a mistake. Or maybe someday you may not be perfect and make a mistake that you feel bad about. Would you want your enemies turning it into a joke?"
See cross-references: Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton.
Tedski|W|P|Okay guys, here is the deal, an attorney named Harry Whittington, was "peppered", shot from such a distance that the shotgun "spray" is diffuse and without a great deal of force. Yeah, you often need to be hospitalized for such a thing, but it isn't lethal. I understand that Cheney was very apologetic for this.The current story is that Mr. Whittington went into an area behind Mr. Cheney, and frightened a covey. The quail flew out, Cheney turned and fired. Whittington apparently did not signal to Cheney about his location or intentions.
If the current story is true, then Whittington was not being careful, if it isn't true, Cheney was being an irresponsible hunter. In either case, such things are usually investigated by local officials. I haven't heard of that happening here; anybody wonder why?
And this is the thing that galls me a bit. It sounds to me that Phx Kid is a responsible hunter, or at least supports responsible hunting and responsible gun ownership. Despite this being an accident, indications are that someone messed up, and it could have been tragic.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing is becoming more common. I have talked to a lot of people in our rural communities who tell the same story, they don't take their kids out hunting anymore because too many "city people" are coming out and behaving irresponsibly.
Phx Kid, Cheney is a big boy now. He's been playing this game almost as long as I've been alive. Cheap shot or no, I think he's getting far worse from other folks. He'll do okay.
|W|P|Congratulations to the Veep for shortcutting McCain-Feingold on campaign donors, but the questions remains: did he give too much or too little? And, was this a warning or just the result of poor marksmanship? It does point out the value of military training and I shall be glad to offer my services to the VP, provided he doesn't have better things to do. |W|P|I knew it! I just knew it!The moment I read phx kid's first post, I said to myself, "I bet this hypocrite takes a Chappaquidick shot every chance he gets."
And there it is. Way to show your true colors, kid.
|W|P|phx kid,Are you deliberately missing the point. Kennedy's accident was reported extensively in the press. It was investigated by police. A long legal process ensued.
Cheney, unlike Kennedy, is lucky his victim was not killed. The larger concern is there appears to be no investigation into the incident. If you accidently shot your hunting partner don't you think there would be an investigation to ensure it was an accident and to determine who was responsible? If Cheney were a Democratic VP there would be a huge hue and cry to have an special prosecutor and an impeachment. But Republican are outside the law, are they not?
Why do you defend someone who blames his mistake on the victim? It is the one shooting who is required make sure he has a clear field of fire. It sounds like Cheney swung around and didn't look. It sounds like the person who he shot was BEHIND him. I know Republicans live in a fantasy world, but really, to blame someone behind you for being shot when you swung around and shot without looking is even stretching it even for a Republican.
An investigation would clear up some of the questions. An apparent attempt to hide the shooting and then the automatic blaming of the victim just raises more questions.
|W|P|So now Scott McClellan has confirmed that Cheney's detail would not let the local county sheriff's investigate - it was on the daily presser - talk about "irresponsible!" Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Phx Kid is being a typical Republican. Apparently, if Ted gives the Veep the benefit of the doubt (which he did) that means that Ted automatically is defending all liberals from anything they have ever done. '"In either case, such things are usually investigated by local officials. I haven't heard of that happening here; anybody wonder why?”
I wonder why Ted Kennedy got away with manslaughter in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne? Talk about irresponsible.'
As for that last bit, if you cannot find the 125,000 books/websites/papers on the Kopechne case, including the public police records, then you need to learn how to google or at least visit a library.
You also need to read the then current driving laws and see why he was charged with what he was charged with.
|W|P|The new NRA slogan - Guns don't shoot people, Vice President's shoot people!
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|TucsonMark...you are right of course. Today at work I did figure out what would be a good example of a low blow: equating someone who has given three limbs in service to this country to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Making fun of a guy who shot someone when he should not have even been hunting is not a low blow. It is Ted's duty as a blogger.
|W|P|Did anyone watch the Bachelor on Monday? Travis is HOT!
My poor brother had to suffer from too many minutes sitting next to Russell Pearce today. Don't worry, he was given some pills and he will be okay.
For those that missed it, he debated Rep. Pearce today's Lou Dobbs Tonight on the issue of the National Guard on the border. It will be repeated a couple of times. My brother was arguing for Napolitano's limited plan (which I wouldn't have voted for) and Pierce was arguing his regular, well founded, sensible border plan, with such evidence as this:
Arizona's No. 1 in crime. You know, the illegal aliens kill more people on an annual basis than we probably lost in the Iraq war to date in the United States. It's enough is enough.Where do we start on that one? The last year I could find statistics for was 2004, when there were 486 homicides. I don't have a breakdown by who was killed by illegal aliens and who by upstanding American citizens, but this stat alone puts a lie to Pierce's numbers. There has been an increase in homicides in recent years, but many experts, you know people who have an actual background in law enforcement, believe that the recent spike is more due to the use of methamphetamine, a home grown drug, by the way. Some guy who couldn't run the DMV knows better though. Besides, I thought these guys were coming up to sponge off welfare, or maybe take our jobs...I can't remember which. Unfortunately, such "factoids" are common for Pierce, then regurgitated by the media. Another of Pierce's "factoids" is that 80% of state inmates are aliens. Turns out it is 12%. The intereview was rushed so Tom didn't feel like he could call him on the phony murder stat, and I couldn't expect Dobbs to refute it, given he suggested the Mexican Army was ready to invade. What the hell are you talking about, Lou?|W|P|113962432602051327|W|P|Lou Dobbs Tonight|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
|W|P|Check your Pearce vs Pierce spellings. Tedski|W|P|Geez...I did that again? I get him confused with former New England Revolution player Rusty Pierce...easy to do, they look a lot alike.
In a move that blindsided even a self-appointed (self-styled? self-delusional?) political expert like me, Tim Sultan, who ran in the 2002 CD 8 primary, endorsed Patty Weiss today.
Sultan was an intern for Dennis DeConcini, and worked on the staff of Nancy Pelosi and a short stint with Janet Napolitano.
The move suprised me, because I have had conversations with Sultan where he said that he wasn't interested in running against Gabrielle Giffords, who he said was a friend. He even attended her announcement a few weeks back. I guess what he meant was: "I'm not interested in running against her because I'd rather endorse her opponent."|W|P|113961457425324383|W|P|"The World Is Beautiful Vase Filled With Scorpions"|W|P|prezelski@aol.com |W|P|um, excuse me ... Miss Giffords? There seems to be some sharp object sticking out of your back. |W|P|DOOOOOODE!!!!I JUST SAW YOUR BROTHER ON CNN ON LOU DOBBS!
wtf???/why didn't you put some info about that on your site. i just caught the last bit. your bro was saying something about the border being a fed. problem, and that bush didn't alot enough money for it...then dobbs cut off the other guy and they went to wolf.
James
Tedski|W|P|James-I wrote about it two days ago...pay attention!
:)
|W|P|Maybe Tim had the opportunity to meet Patty, get to learn her depth on the issues and realize the fact that Weiss is a true progressive.At least the Weiss' campaign is chaired by Democrats -- the life-long variety.
|W|P|Wow...Tim moves from one woman to another...typical Tim! |W|P|Where did you see this endorsement? What was Sultan's reason for endorsing Patty Weiss? |W|P|I don't understand why you've got a thing against the Weiss candidacy. You can support whomever you want, but come up with a better reason than "Patty has no experience." Revere's column was totally lame. If he thinks journalism isn't a public service then the dumb-ass is doing it wrong. He should go back to J-school and spare us his scribbling.
In normal, non-primary voter circles, not being an "experienced" candidate a GOOD thing. It means the person isn't a political hack.
You want to WIN, don't you?
Why stay behind someone who's virtually unknown compared to that overt racist who'll probably get the GOP nod?
There are bigger issues at stake than the petty party squabbles in Tucson. I say get with it and get behind the candidate who's almost a shoe in in the general.
|W|P|Big Deal. Tim Sultan - canned by the governor and now unemployed. I bet Patty offered him a J.O.B. |W|P|Job? That's what I heard. He shopped other campaigns to no avail. |W|P|Roger and the other Tucsonan’s who can’t see outside the Ole Pueblo:Do you realize how much larger the CD8 Universe is besides Tucson? That is so arrogant of all these Tucsonan’s gloating about TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON TUCSON!
Hello folks…that attitude is no different then the attitude from Phoenix has on Tucson. Phoenix looks down on Tucson as something insignificant.
Now Tucson looks down towards Wilcox, Benson, Douglas, Oro Valley, Green Valley, Marana, and Sierra Vista as if they really don’t matter. Gabby isn’t known outside of LD28/Tucson Metro, and if she is known outside of Tucson, they probably don’t view the problems we are facing the same way Gabby does..
Let’s review the map kids. This isn’t a race ONLY IN Tucson.
|W|P|FYI: Willcox has two LL's not one.BF
|W|P|To Tedski--Please help me out here--Where did you see this endorsement? Also, what is the importance of an endorsement by Tim Sultan? Does he have any following in CD 8?
|W|P|Is Tim Sultan really a heavy hitter? Why would anyone want HIS endorsement anyways? He’s just a self-serving punk who’s looking to see and be seen and in the end feel important.If someone like Bacal can defeat him in a election, well maybe he isn’t that big of a deal.
|W|P|Roger,You may wish to talk about who's been working outside Tucson, you may be suprised to see the Latas' working Cochise Co. pretty hard.
They just can't get the press the celebs have gotten. This will change by and by.
Tedski|W|P|The Tim Sultan endorsement was a press release from the Weiss campaign. |W|P|Thanks. |W|P|This pro-Giffords website is so pathetic - you all think anyone who goes against your more conservative candidate does not know what they are talking about. Patty is going to win and Tim is smart for getting in her good graces now. BTW, Tim was not canned he left the Governor's office for a higher paying job - please forgive him for wanting to earn a living for once in his life!Even the Eva Bacal supporter told you she is going to support Patty now that her candidate has dropped out. Wake up and smell the beans it's Patty in '06!
|W|P|Re: Latas working Chocise County.Latas works for Jet Blue at least half of each month and is on the road.
I can't imagine he isn't working any county really hard.
|W|P|Again...if Patty wins, you can bet hell and high water that I will support her in the general. I will not support her in the primary, though, and I hope that Giffords wins.One more thing, anyone trying to paint Giffords as a conservative, as anonymous did, had better look very closely at her support and to her record of endorsements. She gets endorsements of liberal organizations...and high ratings among them. What must be bothering some is that she also gets some endorsements and high ratings from groups that are more moderate. What this sounds like to me is a balanced canidate with balanced support.
|W|P|Might sound good to you but it smells pretty fishy to me.By the way, Latas is seen more on the campaign trail than just about anyone else, even Cochise Co.
|W|P|Well, Neal Rocklin supports Alex Ro -- and no other candidate can claim that fact, YO! Alex even has the entire clip of the show on his website! Dude, listening to answer so sincerely to questions about his veteran past, I can't believe no one would not vote for him at all!GO RO for '06!
Earlier this week, Pima County Democratic Party Chairman Paul Eckerstrom announced that he is leaving his office at the end of the month.
Geez, Paul, you could have called me so I could have a scoop. Thanks, man.
I first met Eckerstrom when I was in college, when he and Ramón Valadez approached the University Democrats to encourage more of us to become interns at local congressional offices. In all of the years since, Eckerstrom was supportive of Young Democrats organizations.
Eckerstrom was not what you would call a timid Democrat. The press loved his tough talk against local Republicans. Occasionally, you could get him riled up and you would wonder if he needed to lay off the cafeine. But, during this last election cycle, it was great to have him there to respond to Republican attacks. At one point, Republican party chief called him "obnoxious." I think that Eckerstrom found that a compliment.
C. T. Revere had a column yesterday where he implies that somehow Eckerstrom was forced out of office by supporters of other Democratic candidates who were angry about comments complimentary of Patty Weiss. Eckerstrom has said that Weiss is popular and electable and would be a formidable candidate. Even for a Giffords supporter like me, this is only stating the obvious.
The comments were in a piece where Revere criticized Weiss's lack of experience. I agree with Revere's point on that one. Revere asked Eckerstrom for a comment, and he said complimentary things about Weiss's candidacy. Well, of course he did. What was expected, that he was going to trash Weiss? Revere hadn't quoted complimentary statements about other candidates because he hasn't asked Eckerstrom for comments about them.
To imply that he was forced out by other candidates, particularly Gabrielle Giffords, is just ridiculous. The heat he took from Steve Farley's supporters after Eckerstrom had recruited Nina Trasoff was much worse. The supporters of Jeff Chimene and Eva Bacal gave him all sorts of grief for complimentary comments on rival candidate Tim Sultan. Chimene's supporters went so far as to force a showdown at a Party executive committee meeting over the incident. Whatever grief he has taken here is rather minor.
I don't know if Revere thinks he is being helpful to Giffords here, but he is just playing into the story put out by Weiss supporters that Giffords is the candidate of those "part of the problem" insiders, and only Weiss can save us from them. Of course, this is silly. Giffords's people didn't demand Eckerstrom's head on a pike and use their insider voodoo to take him out of office.
Of course its also silly because Weiss's campaign chair is consumate insider Tom Chandler, and has other muckety mucks pushing her candidacy.
The other thing I find silly here is that Revere called Eckerstrom for a comment, then was critical that he gave one. Eh? So, what would Revere had said if he was critical of Weiss? What would Revere had said if Eckerstrom refused to comment?
The man has never been shy telling me his opinion, but I haven't heard him say that he is for any of the candidates. I think the candidate he most vociferously supports is one running for Cochise County Clerk of the Court.
NB - Revere quotes a bar owner in the article for comments he overheard Eckerstrom say. Geez, I shudder to think what the owners of the Surly Wench or Club Congress could quote me saying.|W|P|113957964248292929|W|P|Chairman Quits|W|P|prezelski@aol.com |W|P|There is nothing wrong with the party chair making a positive statement about one of the candidates. What is bad is if party leaders say/do things that make it obvious/public that they are supporting one Democrat or another in a primary race since this can increase party disunity--one of the DEMs biggest problems. It is unseemingly for the party leaders, including LD chairs, to show obvious public support for a primary candidate over another. |W|P|I agree with the last commenter - after Weiss handily beats Giffords in the primary, hopefully they will come to her with open arms to help Weiss beat the Republican in the general. Also, Paul is running for office and that is the real reason he stepped down as party chair....
|W|P|I hear that Paul dropped out to run for CD8. LOL. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|When the Republicans claim a Democratic officer is being obnoxious, then you know the person is doing their job right. Thanks Erkerstrom! |W|P|Patty is going to fall on her face in the primary. She should go back to reading the news. |W|P|Whoa! A few of the CD-8 candidate's supporters are getting quite nasty/petty towards each other. This posturing is all bullshit. You should be spending time helping your candidate become the best candidate possible to go up against the Republican primary winner. And if you think your candidate doesn't have much room for improvement, then you obviously did not see them in action at the last two forums. In war and Republican/Rovian politics, it is important to remember the Powell doctrine.
A new Rasmussen poll shows Janet Napolitano ahead of her opponents by ridiculous margins. Is there anything like a mercy rule in politics?
Don Goldwater (still no supporters!) seems to do the best of the bunch, he only gets whupped 54% - 23%. Other candidates tested were John Greene (54% - 27%) and Jan Smith-Florez (55% - 36%). Interestingly, Len Munsil, who leads in fundraising was not tested.
The poll was taken in mid-January, before the current bruhaha over English Language Learners was in full flower. Polling by local media outlets showed that at the very least, Napolitano was unhurt by the fracas, and the fight may have even helped her standing. Of course, the Republicans are still convinced that the people are on their side on this. The issue polls really well for them at Republican district clubs.
I am still cautious about polls when I can't see any details (crosstabs are only available to Rasmussen clients). The only other detail given is that Napolitano's approval rating is at 65%, which is nearly unchanged over the past few months. Goldwater has the highest approval rating of the Republicans that were tested.
This keeps up, I may end up feeling sorry for them.|W|P|113951861735648687|W|P|That Much? Naw, can't be.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com