Dear Sisters and Brothers: In the following weeks, the U.S. Senate will be debating immigration legislation that could impact our nation greatly. This Sunday's César Chávez March for Justice and Peace, in unity with the previous mobilizations around the country (Phoenix, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Georgia, Washington, DC, and others) attempts to educate, mobilize and wake up the "sleeping giant" so that the Senate can pass a comprehensive and just legislation. Special Guest: Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farmworkers Union.

WHO César Chávez Holiday Coalition, with over 35 community organizations WHAT César Chávez March "FOR JUSTICE, FOR PEACE" WHEN Sunday, April 2nd, at 11:30 a.m. WHERE The march will commence at Pueblo High School, 3500 S. 12th Ave (12th Ave. and Ajo Wy) then east on 44th, down on S. 6th Ave, to Rudy Garcia Park (Irvington and 6th Ave.) WHY "Because we want Justice for All" "Because we want an Immigration Reform" "Because a People United, will Never Be Divided" "Because the Time is Now to Unite our Voices as a People" "Because, in Tucson... SI SE PUEDE!"

Queridos Hermanos: En las siguientes semanas, el Senado Estadounidense estará tratando de producir legislación migratoria que podría tener un gran impacto hacia nuestra nación. La marcha César Chávez "POR LA JUSTICIA, POR LA PAZ" del domingo, junto con las previas movilizaciones por toda la nación (Phoenix, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, Georgia, y Washington DC, y demás) intenta educar, movilizar, y despertar al "gigante dormido" de nuestro pueblo y simpatizantes para que el Senado apruebe una legislación comprensiva y justa. Invitada especial, Dolores Huerta, co-fundadora de la Unión de Campesinos, directo desde California.

QUIEN La Coalición de César Chávez, junto con 35 organizaciones comunitarias QUÉ Marcha César Chávez "POR LA JUSTICIA, POR LA PAZ" CUANDO Domingo, 2 de abril de 2006 a las 11:30 de la mañana DONDE 3500 S. 12th Ave La Marcha empezará en la Pueblo High School (avenida 12 y Ajo) hacia el parque del rodeo "Rudy Garcia" (Irvington y Avenida 6ta) PORQUÉ "Porque Queremos Justicia Para Todos" "Porque Queremos Una Reforma Migratoria" "Porque el Pueblo Unido, Jamás Será Vencido" "Porque Ahora es Cuando Debemos Unir Nuestras Voces por Nuestra Gente" "Porque, en Tucson... SI SE PUEDE!"

3/28/2006 11:08:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|It really disturbs me the level to which the right has ratcheted this debate.

I don't want to see people who we have no knowledge of entering the country. And it is certainly true that we can be doing a much better job than we have been securing our borders. And there are many proposals out there for how we could do this.

But listen to the rhetoric of those on the right. Making living here a felony? Building a wall around the country (remember when that was a figure of speech instead of a real proposal?) Changing the Constitution to make people who are born and live their whole lives in America non-citizens?

These kinds of narrow-minded populist proposals may win a few votes for Republicans, but in the long run they damage the country, especially if any of them actually become laws.3/27/2006 06:46:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of my correspondents noted that I have given a link to Bill Montgomery's campaign website, but not to Terry Goddard's campaign website. I was giving a link to his official site though, which, of course Montgomery doesn't have. I don't anticipate haing to add one anytime soon either. I have added both Goddard links to my "Links" list on the side bar. Sheesh.|W|P|114346753547190701|W|P|I Relent|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/27/2006 02:30:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Naw...I'm still mad that she turned me down for a date back in '97.

Just kidding...I'll add one when I get home. I just plum forgot.3/27/2006 10:45:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|All that drinking you been doing Ted.3/27/2006 05:39:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Former Polish President, labor leader and Nobel laureate Lech Wałęsa spoke at Regis University, a Jesuit liberal arts college in Colorado. I still consider Wałęsa a hero despite some of his statements in office near the end of his term. He issued a warning that our nation is now being resented around the world, even in the so-called "New Europe" that the Neo-Consenvatives think would be naturally grateful to us. He has not decided not to meet with President Bush. Considering that Wałęsa is a high profile former head of state this can be considered a snub. Given that Wałęsa was prone to embarassing unfamiliarity with his native language and often was too friendly with the European far right, you'd think that the two of them would be better pals. If they've even alienated admirers of our country like Wałęsa, what chance to we have with the rest of the world?|W|P|114346427317638009|W|P|Don't Forget Poland|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/28/2006 12:51:00 AM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I am going to invent a language composed of simple letters and vowels and that is easy for me to pronounce. I am tired of getting yelled at by Jesse for talking like Harry Truman. I got my lexicon from books I read, not from listening to great speakers...garrrr!3/28/2006 06:29:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|What...it's pronounced Va-wen-sa...just like it's spelled.

Sheesh, some people.3/26/2006 01:09:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Former Rep. Greg Patterson, the "Espresso Pundit," has an ongoing thesis that the Hispanic community is about to, en masse, become a bullet-proof Republican consituency. For example, one of the pieces of proof he offered was that an employee at Stan Barnes's firm was Hispanic. The first thing I thought of when I saw that one was that I have a friend at work that is an Evangelical that is a hard core John Edwards fanatic. This must mean that the Evangelicals are about to become solidly Democratic for the next two and a half centuries. His latest piece of evidence is that an organization called the Southern Arizona Hispanic Leadership Council endorsed Jon Kyl last week. On the surface, a Hispanic organization endorsing a Republican Senator might be a big deal. However, digging around a little bit would show that this is no suprise what so ever, and means a heck of a lot less than people like Patterson would think. Well, it really doesn't even take that much digging. A visit to the website has this, right there on the front page:

The Southern Arizona Hispanic Leadership Council was formed in 2005 by a group of active community leaders. Partipants are recruited individually with a focus on hispanic Republicans and Independents. The goal of the organization is to educate the hispanic community about the shared values of the Republican party and to encourage hispanic Republican leaders to run for office.

So, um, the group is a Republican organization. Not just an organization that happens to have a lot of Republicans, but one that wants to elect Republicans. They even have those little flag draped elephants on their brochure. A Republican party organization endorsed a Republican Senator who has a pretty strong lead in the polls. Stop the presses. Anyone who thinks that the formation of this organization is some sort of "sea change" hasn't been too observant of our local politics. There has always been a significant number of Hispanics in the Republican party here. Tucson's only Hispanic mayor was a fellow named Esteban Ochoa, a Republican. The folks that formed the Republican party in Arizona Territory were, hard as it is to believe now, Hispanic Republicans in Tucson. Many of those families, such as the Jacome and Laos families, are still Republican and form a significant part of what is sometimes refered to as la crema, a sort of unofficial Hispanic gentry in Tucson. Every Hispanic family, even the most politically minded liberal ones, has at least one Republican. This would only indicate a major change in politics if it was something new, but it has been going on for generations. The interesting thing is that in the past, Republican arguments about Hispanics changing parties have centered around social issues. The SAHLC makes no mention of social issues on their site, and their pro-Kyl press release made only a cursory mention of "common sense values," whatever the heck that means. Their board consists mostly of business people who "values voters" in the Republican party would regard as part of the problem in their party. One of the people on their board is a supporter of Raúl Grijalva. I guess this wouldn't be such a big deal, except for the fact that she's the chairperson of the organization, Lea Márquez Peterson. I'm not sure what that says, either that the Republicans have such total schlubs running in CD 7 that not even their own activists support them, or that maybe this "earthquake" won't happen for a long time. By the way, Márquez Peterson's family, despite being in that "bullet proof" Republican group: small buisinesspeople, are Democrats. (Full disclosure: Márquez Peterson was active with SUAB when I was with that organization at the U of A, and I've played soccer with her brother, Edmund Márquez. I'm a bit of a hack, so I probably tripped him more than once.) Another person on the board is Lillian Lopez-Grant. Lopez-Grant has been involved in Republican politics for years in this town, so she isn't exacly an indicator of anything "new." However, she is probably the only person on that board that has anything approaching organizational muscle. But, even she has been dissed by the local Republican establishment, most recently by Councilmember Kathleen Dunbar in the last election. As much as the Republicans like to talk about inclusion, things like this are also noticed by the community. Even though you have candidates like Dunbar who refuse to campaign in Hispanic neighborhoods, the biggest impediment for organizations like the SAHLC is their own Republican primary voters. Take the 2004 primary in CD 7 for example. You had Lou Muñoz, a local businessman, against Joe Sweeney, a racist and certifiable moron. So, instead of voting for the level headed candidate, CD 7 Republicans chose, by a two-to-one margin, the race baiting Sweeney. What can one do but ask if people wanted to vote for Sweeney because he was a racist, or against Muñoz because of his race? One can also look at the Republican primary for Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2002, where Tom Horne ran a campaign that asked if Latino Republican incumbent Jaime Molera could be trusted to make sure that kids learned English. He was rewarded with a victory. But, keep up the wishful thinking.|W|P|114340832645073594|W|P|Wow, A Republican Group Endorsed Kyl. Golly, I Guess We Should Just Quit Now.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/26/2006 08:26:00 PM|W|P| Tony GOPrano|W|P|Jim Pederson can't buy this election Ted. It's really fun to watch you dems get your hopes all up, and then poof.....YOU LOSE!

Forgetaboutit!!!!3/26/2006 10:25:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|And then when we win, do we get to feed you crow?

:)3/27/2006 03:52:00 AM|W|P| Michael Bryan|W|P|Great post, Ted. I was contemplating a fisking of this astro-turf endorsement myself, but I'm glad to see you've done such a devastating job of it.

I've got to get over to Espresso more often, the place is a rich vein of material. I just posted a bit on how conservatives have lobotomies on the subject of deficits based on an Espresso post.3/27/2006 04:45:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|"But in the same vain the Christian Alliance for Progress is a front group of Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Lutheran liberals pretending to be Christians."

So, I guess you are saying that anyone who is liberal can't be Christian? Pretty insulting, don't you think? I could go through all the ways that conservatives haven't exactly been the best at upholding Christian ideals (two examples: the application of the Death Penalty and their enthusiasm for torturing Iraqi prisoners), but there probably wouldn't be much point in that.

Why do you see the mote in your neighbor's eye, but fail to see the beam in your own?3/25/2006 02:56:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The District 17 Democratic Committee met to select their three nominees to replace Harry Mitchell. The three were picked with very little fanfare or constrenation, which should suprise anyone that has been reading the Democratic blogs lately.

• Meg Burton Cahill: Current House member and candidate for the Senate seat that Harry was planning on retiring from at the end of this year anyhow.
• Eddie Ableser: Democratic nominee for the house in 2004, and also a candidate this year. Does he keep running for the house if he's in the senate?
• Sharon Doyle: Cahill's treasurer for her campaigns. She has vowed not to run for re-election if she gets appointed.

I know nothing about the dynamics on the board (I have enough trouble with Pima County's Board), so someone else will have to clue me in on what happens next.|W|P|114332426637760512|W|P|Replacing Harry|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/27/2006 03:59:00 AM|W|P| Michael Bryan|W|P|I think the PCs of 17 did a fantastic job of gauging the GOP dominated Board. Their choice make it nearly impossible for the 'copa Supes to screw with us. They almost have to pick Boyle, which is the LD17 Dems want. Despite any of the normal discontents of intra-party politics, the PCs of 17 did a great job.3/25/2006 06:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|From the an article in the latest Tucson Weekly:

He discussed the issue with Democratic state Rep. Tom Prezelski at a Knockout Pills show, in what is likely a rare instance of a politician meeting up with a constituent at a punk-rock concert.

See, you just don't get that sort of grass roots activity at a Toby Keith or Billy Joel concert. It also means constituent contact is short, loud, and in simple declarative sentences.|W|P|114329540064736425|W|P|You Start Electing Those Gen Xers, and This Is What Happens|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/24/2006 07:23:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I am still on Wesley Clark's various e-mail lists, and I got a notice a couple of weeks ago about Iraqi/Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC. The group is an outgrowth of Operation Truth, and its board includes Clark, Sen. Bob Kerrey and Paul Hackett. I first heard of Operation Truth at the Democratic Convention, when I was approached by one of their members. He handed me a card and told me what the group was about. He said that he actually was a Republican but wanted to make sure that Democrats knew what was really going on in Iraq. He talked about the lack of equipment, but also about plans that the White House had to close Veterans hospitals and also about the difficulty of recieving mental health care after separation. My father is a veteran, so I try to keep up with these issues and I knew about a lot of it. But, it still makes me sad, and I was impressed that a vet, so soon after coming back from the war, was willing to travel the country to tell folks about what was happening to his brothers and sisters. The group has some rather strict requirements for being endorsed. Our own Jeff Latas doesn't qualify because he didn't serve in the current Iraq campaign; they require a Iraq Campaign medal, and the veterans of the 1991 conflict have a Kuwait Liberation medal. They take pains to say that they will not consider party affiliation, but they want their candidates to support a specific agenda:

• Demand from the administration a victory strategy for Iraq that includes hard success metrics which trigger American troop drawdowns so our forces can safely re-deploy from theater.
• Mandatory full funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
• Thorough investigation of the failure to provide adequate armor for our soldiers, and that those responsible are held accountable.
• An increase in the size of the active component army by eight units of action (brigades) and doubling the size of our Special Forces units in order to help relieve our over-extended army. (NOTE: This is not an increase in the number of troops currently deployed in Iraq).
• Guaranteeing the exhaustion of diplomacy options by the President prior to approval for military conflict.
• TRICARE (health care) for all members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. As of July 2004, 20% of National Guardsmen lacked healthcare. Currently, Guardsmen and Reservists can buy into TRICARE if they are unemployed or are not covered by their employer. IAVA PAC supports extending TRICARE coverage to all Guardsmen and Reservists.
• Lowering the retirement age for members of the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55.
• An immediate 5% pay increase for our Armed Forces.

Doesn't exactly sound like the sort of thing a lot of Republican candidates are too excited about signing on for. Their candidates include recent primary victor Tammy Duckworth, Joe Sestak, who is running against administration apologist Curt Weldon and Andrew Horne, running against the always-vulnerable-but-wins-anyway Ann Northrop. The site still lists North Carolina's Tim Dunn, who recently dropped out of his race. I wonder how a Republican candidate continues to justify the current war plan in Iraq (let alone the war itself) when confronted with someone that was actually there and can speak the truth about what a disaster it is. Of course, actually serving in the war is apparently not a qualification to speak about it. Heck, they will actually argue that staying at home and impugning the rest of our patriotism is just like being there. I'd like to see them pull that one against double amputee Duckworth, or even someone whose family has suffered like Latas.|W|P|114321020641086179|W|P|IAVA PAC|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/02/2006 01:25:00 PM|W|P| DownWithTyranny|W|P|There's no conflict there. I'm sure every single IAVA supporter in the 8th congressional district will also be a Latas supporter. I was completely unaware of IAVA when Down With Tyranny endorsed Joe Sestak and we're thinking about doing the same thing for Latas.3/23/2006 10:35:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I'm hearing now that there is a group of three consultants that are lobbying for Cox Cable in an attempt to deregulate them, allowing them to do things such as get rid of public access channels. Two of the consultants are Larry Hecker and Dan Eckstrom. Both are Democrats but have always had a pro-business bent and do this sort of thing for a living. The third, the third is the big suprise. The third is former Tucson Mayor Tom Volgy. Tom Volgy? Why? Volgy was the one who forced Cox to have the public access channels in the first place. Volgy has always regarded himself as a small "d" democrat who saw things like public access, campaign finance reform and neighborhood associations as necessary to maintain civic life. Why the heck would he go against his own excellent record on behalf of an out of state corporation that reported $6.4 Billion in revenues last year? Please, someone tell me that this isn't true. I wouldn't even say anything about it, but had another elected official or former elected official did something like this, Volgy would have been the first one to call them on it. Rightly so.|W|P|114317917968779303|W|P|Say It Ain't So, Tom...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/24/2006 12:04:00 AM|W|P| Michael Bryan|W|P|"I'm hearing" isn't much of a source, Ted. I know that sometimes sources prefer to remain on background, but this is a fairly damaging accusation in some circles (mine included) to accept it without any verification.

Show me somethin', brother.3/24/2006 12:08:00 AM|W|P| Michael Bryan|W|P|I think this must be the source. I'm frankly not sure whether I believe Tom disclaimers or not. In either case, it might be a remunerative gig, but it might ending up costing Tom some credibility.

http://www.azstarnet.com/altsn/snredesign/relatedarticles/1182093/23/2006 07:09:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Gabrielle Giffords sent out a press release that basically says, "Mr. Vice President, I know it is vital to the national security of our country that you entertain our region's Thurston Howells with your famous quick wit, but could you take some time to come down to the border and, I dunno, take a good look? Thanks." Of course, Cheney will never do it. He'd rather fly in, make a speech to the check writers and fly out. This is his version of keeping in touch with our community. Heaven forbid. He may actually, I don't know, meet a real Tucsonense who might have a problem with administration policy. He might find out where administration policies have failed our community. I remember when I had a post a while back about the union endorsements that Patty Weiss and Giffords had recieved, and one of my frequent Republican posters wanted to note how much money Cheney had made in a previous visit for Jon Kyl. So, I wrote about how organizations representing thousands of working people were supporting various candidates, and the response is "look how many rich people like my guy." I'm sure some Republican will spin this Cheney visit as Kyl taking Tucson "seriously." Well, I guess after twelve years in office, it's a good time to start. His taking our community "seriously" seems to consist of high dollar fundraisers on the foothills and quick stops to locales near I-10. The first event that was supposed to show that he was taking us yokels seriously featured locals such as Christine Toretti-Olson, the wanna be carpetbagger candidate who is still an active member of the Pennsylvania Republican party. Sorry, man, you gotta do better than that.|W|P|114316886685779204|W|P|Giffords Calls Cheney Out|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/23/2006 08:42:00 PM|W|P| Daniel R. Patterson, Editor|W|P|AZ enviro. and human rights groups have also asked for a direct mtg. with Kyl and tour of border, which is likely to be denied.

Kyl and Cheney are like peas in a pod.

Giffords is wise and bold to call out the VP during his overnight money trip to Tucson.3/23/2006 09:45:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Reich spent two days in Southern Arizona. Yes, he raised money, but he also participated in public events in three different towns (events which included audience questions). I'd say that is a bit different than parachuting into a town, speaking to the landed gentry, then beating a path to the airport while escorted by the Secret Service.

And George, yes, its politics. So what?3/23/2006 06:12:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Senator Harry Mitchell has resigned his seat so he can devote his full time to running against J. D. Hayworth. And no one, no one told me that this was about to happen. You people, my humble and loyal readers, have failed me. I don't know what I am going to do. NB - Note that above I did not link to Hayworth's irritating congressional site. If you really want to hear Hayworth creepily welcoming you to his site, click here.|W|P|114316314518167609|W|P|And of Course, I'm the Last to Know|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/23/2006 10:56:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I sent you an email regarding Mitchell's resignation the second I found out about it myself. So none of this crap about your loyal readers not filling you in.

Keep it up and you might not get a word by word description of the meeting to nominate his replacement. :p3/24/2006 05:37:00 PM|W|P| Shane Wikfors|W|P|We broke the story yesterday as we watched the resignation take place on the floor of the State Senate. C'mon Ted, please tell us that you have time to watch the live feed at the capitol.

www.azlifepac.org

Your loyal yet friendly opposition :)

Shane3/23/2006 06:38:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I wrote yesterday about C. J. Karamargin leaving the Arizona Daily Star. I neglected to mention another reporter that left, border beat reporter Michael Marizco. Marizco left the Star in December; he told me in an e-mail that he left to write a book (they couldn't just give him a leave or sabatical for that?). I imagine that he had had the same frustrations that many other reporters who have left recently have had. The Star was willing to let Marizco go even though he had won awards (including one given by the corporation that owns the Star for a series on people who smuggle and exploit children) and is covering probably the most important ongoing story for this region of the country. The local television stations have been giving some coverage of border issues, but it tends to give stories so sensationalistic as to be at best useless or at worst dangerous. A hardworking reporter for the area's largest daily would have been a great counterweight to this. I suppose that the professionals that run the Star understand something about quality journalism that a humble amateur like me doesn't. Anyhow, Marizco has set up a blog called Border Reporter. He continues to do freelance work (such as this article in the Tucson Weekly) and it is worth checking out.|W|P|114312206341479415|W|P|Another New Blog|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/22/2006 03:31:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|As reported earlier on this here blog, C. J. Karamargin is leaving the Arizona Daily Star and moving to the Tucson Citizen. He will not be covering politics for them, but will be doing "features." Ironically, Karamargin started at the Citizen as a features writer, but left when there was an exodous from that paper in 2000 and 2001. Karamargin now seems to be part of an exodous from the Star, with reporters like Mitch Tobin also gone. I wasn't always happy with Karamargin's reporting. After a while, I started wondering how much of the lack of political coverage in our morning daily was him, and how much of it was shortsighted editors. In general, our local media likes to pretend they live in a world where politics simply doesn't exist. For example, the State of the State address, where the Governor announced new immigration policy and her budget, didn't merit front page coverage. That can't be blamed on Karamargin, that's an editorial decision. It tells you an awful lot about how important the Star's editors regard stories about politics and public policy. The story that made the front page that day was yet another story about the then ongoing search for a new University of Arizona president. The story took up even more room since it included pictures and capsule biographies of the various candidates. The pictures and fully fleshed biographies could also be found elsewhere in the paper, which means that rather than giving the State of the State story prominence, they chose to be redundant. Karamargin's last few weeks at the paper had him ensconsed in Phoenix covering the legislature. This wouldn't have been much of a problem, except that he was supposed to be covering local politics too. The biggest political story this year has to be the CD 8 race. Hard to cover that one from Phoenix. What folks at the papers will tell you is that political stories don't sell papers. That may very well be true, but given the erosion in newspaper readership, I don't think it can be argued that whatever it is they are trying to do is selling papers either. As old fashioned as it is to talk about a company's responsibility to a community, a city's daily newspaper should see it as its job to cover local politics, no matter how boring they think it is. What could be more important than informing citizens how their taxes are being spent and what is being done by public officials in their name? Interestingly, the Citizen has been getting better lately. Their coverage of border issues has been excellent (the Star's border reporter recently quit too), and they have had a few shining moments. For example, they actually sent a reporter to Chapel Hill to find out a little background about the newly selected U of A president. The Citizen, with a smaller staff and not as much money thought this was important, and the Star didn't think that this was all that important. We are lucky to have two papers, our big brother up the road only has one daily. I would think that two papers would lead to reporters scrambling to one-up each other, but somehow it hasn't. The Star, being the biggest paper in Southern Arizona and our state's first daily, should own certain issues, like the border. Instead, they seem to be satisfied with covering nothing of any sort of importance.|W|P|114306746131039131|W|P|C. J. Moves to Citizen|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/22/2006 11:08:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|We also have the New Times even if that is not a daily but it does cover more local political stuff...

And it is "you are" not your.3/21/2006 10:16:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Former Mayor Tom Volgy announced his support for CD 8 Democratic Candidate Patty Weiss yesterday. In a statement released by Weiss's campaign, he named her support for Tucson's campaign financing system and willingness to use it as a national model as one of his chief reasons for his endorsement. Volgy's loss in the 2003 mayor's race occurred because East side Democrats didn't vote for him. Guess which part of town forms the bulk of Democratic votes in CD 8? Like Weiss, Volgy lives a few blocks outside of the district. I don't think it is that big a deal really, but everybody else seems to like to point that one out. Other former councilmembers seem to have also picked horses. Former councilmember Molly McKasson is holding a "house party" for Jeff Latas. An e-mail that announced the party named McKasson's respect for Latas's military career as one of her reasons for supporting him. If you don't find this ironic, you don't know McKasson. Former councilmember Chuck Ford was spotted at a labor rally for Gabrielle Giffords that starred Robert Reich.|W|P|114300566137015973|W|P|Volgy Announces Support for Patty Weiss|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/22/2006 08:57:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Once again, I get called "whimpy" because I don't agree with a poster. What would be whimpy is for me to change my opinions only so I agree with you.

I think the whole residency thing is silly. I was pointing it out only to be silly. I guess I should mark my sentences in some fancy type so nobody misses it. Of couse, clearly marking what I write as snarky doesn't seem to help either.3/23/2006 09:06:00 AM|W|P| New American Rebel|W|P|Volgy is a tool. When I was a UA student, I took a poli sci class from him. I wouldn't place ANY weight behind ANYTHING he said. No, I didn't receive a bad grade from him, so this isn't bitterness.3/23/2006 10:30:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Well, NAR, let's face it, you aren't exactly a highly targeted voter in this prmary, are you?3/21/2006 06:29:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|It looks as though Arizona Daily Star political reporter C. J. Karamargin has left his position. No details on this yet. Film at eleven.|W|P|114299118481299222|W|P|C. J. Karamargin Leaves Star|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/21/2006 07:00:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Oh, dear.

Where I live we don't see much of the Daily Star but I much prefer it to the Republic and make a point of reading it on those rare occasions when I have an opportunity to.

Any word on where he is going?3/21/2006 06:41:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|You may remember an entry I wrote on Bill Montgomery a few weeks back. I am definitely not a supporter of his, and I made that clear in the entry. Montgomery has written to me, here are his comments:

I know you referenced responding to my e-mail but, unfortunately, I did not receive it. I actually wrote you because I believe that the blogosphere is just as valid a communication medium as “old media” used to be and I enjoyed reading your blog. As for prosecuting employers for hiring illegal immigrants, there’s no safe harbor in my candidacy or service as Attorney General. My reference to partnering with employers is to insure that the majority who follow the law are not saddled with undue regulatory burdens that drive up the cost of doing business which, ultimately, is borne by consumers. Right now, we do pay $3 for a head of lettuce – the difference shows up in increased costs for our healthcare, education, and criminal justice systems. I’d like to see use of a biometric card for more reliable verification of employment eligibility and, once we eliminate excuses for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, they will be just as much in my sights as the coyotes (with or without lobbyists). As far as experience, I’ll gladly match my time as a prosecutor with my opponent’s and leadership lessons learned in and out of the Army, let alone actual time spent working as a lawyer. I prosecuted several hundred felony matters and appeared in nearly 1,000 cases for the citizens of Maricopa County in the nearly four years I had the pleasure of working at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. Also, unlike some prosecutors who are just looking for trial experience before moving off to practice criminal defense, I begrudgingly left so my wife could stay home with our kids. Unfortunately, that was short lived since my Mom was then diagnosed with lung cancer. I set up my own firm to give me the flexibility to care for her and still bring in some income. Since then, though, my practice has been overwhelmingly in litigating on behalf of crime victims and safeguarding their rights under Arizona’s Victim’s Bill of rights. Last point: “tweety bird” – that’s bit pejorative. Nonetheless, if you love the representation we’re getting from the incumbent AG, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Take care, Bill Montgomery

I'm glad he made it clear that he wants to prosecute coyotes. However, I am always amazed that small government Republicans, who seem to think that a simple background check to make sure that a felon can't buy firearm is tantamount to fascism, would support a system of "identity cards" similar to something you'd find in Czechoslovakia circa 1972 or Vichy France. Every job I have ever had to apply for involved me filling out an I-9. The employer had to verify my eligibility with already available paperwork. This is why I don't buy the excuse that employers can't check their employees, and also why I don't think we need to take that system and add yet another layer of bureaucracy and government control. Interestingly, he says that he doesn't want to burden employers with more responsibilities. His plan sounds, at best, a transfer of those responsibilities to employees, who probably don't have office managers and assistants to handle such things. Montgomery, from what I understand, ably served in the Army and ought to be commended for that. I am not sure that his experience there necesarilly translates into being a good Attorney General. Since he would be replacing Terry Goddard, he needs to tell us why he wouldn't only be adequate, but what would make him a better Attorney General. What decisions has Goddard made that he doesn't agree with? Who has Goddard gone after that he wouldn't have? Payday lenders? Polluters? People who scam the elderly? Warren Jeffs? I didn't make the "Tweety Bird" comment. This wouldn't be the first time I got blamed for something that one of my readers posted.|W|P|114294993350302710|W|P|A Reply from Bill Montgomery|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/21/2006 11:28:00 AM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Oh, heck, quit picking on the guy. He's out there to fill a spot on the ballot, he knows that, and he has about as much chance of winning this election as there is of there being a tornado in Phoenix.3/21/2006 03:59:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:

OK, he has less chance than that. Maybe I should have said he has as much chance as there being a blizzard in July in Phoenix.3/20/2006 09:31:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Our last huge wave of anti-immigrant hysteria resulted in the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act. The act set quotas on European immigrants, and prohibited immigrants from India and East Asia all together. Historians believe that the act was prompted by a wave of anti-semitism and the so-called "red scare." In some confused minds, any Jewish or Eastern European immigrant was a potential bolshevik agitator. Interestingly, the act set no quotas on Latin American immigrants. I'll leave the irony up to y'all. I am on a listserv for Polish Americans. I got a copy of an article from New American Media on Polish immigrant workers. The anti-immigrant sentiment is making life tough for them and many are choosing to stay away from our country all together, going to friendlier countries in Western Europe. Maybe its because I am of mixed heritage it is easier for me to see the two struggles as the same. It's too bad that so many people whose families were immigrants only a couple of generations ago can't see it that way.|W|P|114291635399591363|W|P|A Couple of Not Necessarilly Related Items on Immigration|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/20/2006 10:03:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Isaac Asimov had the best quote I've ever seen on that law. He wrote once, that that was the year that 'the Golden Door slammed shut.'3/21/2006 12:34:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I bet that red scare was more about businesses not willing to deal with the unions. When I was reading on the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire they mention how a lot of union people were immigrants. Businesses generally hate unions so it would not surprise me.

I also wonder how much that affected what happened in the 1930s and the Jews who were trying to get out of Europe.3/20/2006 07:56:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|You might say "Say it isn't so!" but I say, "I told you so." One of my ongoing frustrations when talking to Democratic activists around the country is their ongoing infatuation with John McCain. "Oh, you are so lucky to have him there," or "I'd vote for him if I lived in Arizona." Somehow, they equated his personal animus for the President (which only rarely resulted in votes against administration policy) and his zeal for campaign finance reform (which always seemed to increase when it came to taking on unions) with being an actual liberal, or at the very least a moderate. Well, the man who back in 2000 said here in my very own city that he wants to be "president in the best way and not the worst way," has completely thrown in with the pod people. According to Josh Marshall's TPM Muckraker, McCain's Straight Talk PAC has hired Terry Nelson. Nelson not only worked for Bush's 2000 campaign, but is tied in with Tom Delay's money laundering scheme. "Reformer with Results" my half-Mexican behind. While my friends with stars in their eyes were thinking of McCain the reformer, we who have been following his career were thinking of the McCain that was the only senator not to return the money from Charles Keating, the McCain that used his office to carry out grudges against moderate Republicans and non-fawning reporters in the 1990s, and the McCain who was so partisan that he was almost ready to tank our state's CAP money in an effort to embarass Governor Rose Mofford. What we are seeing now is not a "new" McCain, but rather McCain out of disguise.|W|P|114291098563368382|W|P|Just Reverting Back to Form|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/20/2006 09:50:00 PM|W|P| Tony GOPrano|W|P|You will be calling Sen. McCain....President McCain in 2009!
Get used to it Teddy....Nice ring to it...President John McCain!!!3/20/2006 09:59:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Amen, Tedski.

McCain is a glory hog, and still a conservative on everything that matters. God help us all if the man ever becomes the President of the United States.

The good news is that he is also a fool. Last year he made a Faustian deal with Karl Rove and the rest of the brain trust of the Republican party to go out and campaign for the President in return for whatever they promised him. Not hard to figure out what they promised him, just think about what he wants that they could offer.

But like a stupid mule that you can dangle a carrot in front of and then jerk it away at the last moment, the expected party support for McCain in 2008 won't materialize. There are two reasons for this: 1) they are more Machiavellian than he is, and they don't trust him, so they will push for someone more malleable, and 2) even if they did back him, the Republican party is starting to fractionate and the support of the Bush squad probably wouldn't be enough to snarf the nomination anyway.

The religious and neo-conservatives now dominate the Republican party, and the only way I can see them nominating McCain is if things look so bad for their party by 2008 that they expect to get beat real bad, then they may send him out to be their sacrificial 'Bob Dole.'

But if there is any doubt about McCain, just point out the company he is keeping nowadays: IRI a supposedly 'nonpartisan' (MY ass) organization put together by the neocons to 'monitor elections' (as opposed to the Carter institute or the U.N.) around the world.

Here are some members of their board:

John McCain, chairman.

one other sitting Senator and two sitting Congressmen-- including Jim Kolbe-- and all are Republicans.

Lawrence Eagleburger
Frank Fahrenkopf
Jeanne Kirkpatrick
Brent Scowcroft

and an assortment of other Republican party hacks, CEO's and you get the idea.

But not a Democrat to be seen. And McCain isn't just a member, he is the chairman of the board.

McCain is old. McCain is up in 2010. By then he will either have become President or tried and failed (most probable). I suspect he'd be thinking retirement. Oh, and Janet is term limited in 2010. Confluence of the stars?3/21/2006 07:15:00 AM|W|P| Rex Scott|W|P|McCain will never be the GOP nominee, despite his exertions to once again re-invent himself. The red-meat dogmatists distrust him because of McCain-Feingold, his lack of total fealty to the NRA, his unwillingness to drill for oil in ANWR and his numerous attacks the "religious right" in 2000.

I agree that he is neither a moderate or a "straight talker," but he is what passes for both in today's GOP. Who in prominence is to the left of him in the national party? Mentioning Arnold or Giuliani doesn't count because they have even less of a chance to be on a national ticket due to their apostasy on abortion and gay rights.

As someone who WAS a Republican in 2000 and DID vote for McCain in that year's primaries, you can add me to the list of people who now feel duped, but perhaps that is more my fault than it is McCain's. After all, Tedski points out many (but not all) of his pre-2000 antics that should have made me and others more skeptical at that time.

George Allen or someone of his ilk will be the GOP nominee in 2008, just as sure as Randy Graf will win the Republican nod in CD8 this year. The so-called moderates will get hosed on both counts. Hopefully, they will then have time and cause to wonder why they let their former attack dogs and hatchet men on the right take over control of their party.3/23/2006 07:31:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|What, is McCain going to grievously injure his shakin' hand?

:)3/20/2006 06:25:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|District 8 congressional candidate Alex Rodriguez is having a fundraiser this week. He sent an announcement to his supporters which contained this startling message:

We are proud to see the first Hispanic run for Congress. This is a big stride for the Hispanic population, and will hopefully be the beginning of great hope and accomplishments for our children, grandchildren and our future politicians.

Yes, isn't it about time that this country put a Hispanic in congress? Arizona ought to take a lead in this endeavor. Just so Rodriguez's folks know, the first Hispanic to successfully run for congress was Joseph Marion Hernández, who was a Whig elected as the territorial Delegate from Florida in 1822. The first voting Hispanic member was Ramualdo Pacheco, a Republican from California who served several non-consecutive terms in the 1870's and even served as Governor for a short time. A quick look at our current delegation should tell his folks that he isn't even the first Hispanic to run in Arizona, but, if my memory serves, he would be the first to run in CD 8 (or the old CD5). This is nearly as silly as when Rodriguez claimed to be the only veteran to run, which led to some pointed words from the supporters of Air Force veteran Jeff Latas. Come on, how could y'all not know that Latas is a veteran? Both candidates came to their senses on this one before it became an amusing enough "whose is bigger?" contest for folks like me to comment on. Of course, that didn't stop one supporter of Frank Antenori from trumping both of them on Arizona Congress Watch by claiming that his man has actually killed more terrorists. Okay, you have them beat there, I guess.|W|P|114286377687378744|W|P|...And He Also Invented the Internet|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/17/2006 06:47:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Over on AZ Congress Watch, there was a report yesterday that Rep. Raúl Grijalva was leaving the hispanic caucus. Well, not quite. Grijalva, along with most of the caucus's California membership, have ceased association with the caucus's PAC, called BOLDPAC. Apparently, this has been stirring for quite some time, and stemed from thePAC's support of relatives of caucus members running for local offices. Of course, Rep. Loretta Sanchez being mad about this sort of nepotism is amusing, but never mind that. What is interesting to me is that while Grijalva on the list, the rest are entirely from California. The member that runs BOLDPAC, Rep. Joe Baca, is from California as well. What is up with that? Also, I find it interesting that Sanchez and Rep. Hilda Solis are both on the list. The two have had some friction in the past, particularly after Sanchez recruited her sister Linda to run for congress over several local politicos who had paid their dues. I can't pretend that I have any idea what is going on in the background here, but BOLDPAC isn't known for raising an awful lot of money, and doesn't have a field operation to tap into. New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid has a great shot at taking out Rep. Heather "Janet Jackson Made Me Cry" Wilson, and there is a need to defend the seats of Rep. John Salazar and newly appointed Senator Robert Menendez. Building a "farm team" is important, but I can see why there is anger over spending scant resources on electing someone's daughter county clerk. The important thing to remember here is that Grijalva and Co. are not leaving the caucus. The caucus is not just BOLDPAC, it is also a voice on issues like immigration and education and also has an arm called the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, which is involved in various philanthropic activities. The caucus has always been pretty diverse, it includes more conservative Tejanos like Rep. Henry Cuellar as well as liberal firebrands like Nuyorican Rep. Nydia Velázquez. (Oddly, Hispanic political icon Henry B. González was never a member) For a long time, Cubano members, who are entirely Republican but for obvious reasons are also concerned about the direction of the immigration debate, were active caucus members but left as partisanship in the house grew ('round about the time of the formation of BOLDPAC). NB - Rep. Dennis Cardoza is a member? The reason why I ask is that I have a friend that is very active in the Portuguese community in Massachusetts. When I said once, "Well, you are sort of Hispanic too..." she got very offended. "But, Portugal was part of Hispana too." "No, it was part of Lusitania. We aren't Hispanics, we are Luso-Americans." Maybe the community in New England is more uptight, you know, all that snow and chowder. Second mildly related anectdote: I drove around Rep. Hilda Solis when she came to the 2001 Young Democrats of America convention. The radio in the rental car I was driving for some reason had the local classical station on. I left it there, figuring it wouldn't offend anyone. Solis and one staff member got into the car and she said, "Oh please, you think that just because I'm in congress that I'm old and boring? Put on some rock and roll..." I switched it one of our copious classic rock stations (one that has probably changed format three times since then) and she sang along.|W|P|114260675094776325|W|P|Raúl Grijalva: Not Leaving the Hispanic Caucus|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/17/2006 01:57:00 PM|W|P| Jane Arizona|W|P|Thanks, Ted. I'll run a link to this post tonight.3/16/2006 07:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A correspondent sent me a little bit from former Avondale Mayor Ron Drake's web page. I never visit there. Since I don't go there, I miss stirring pieces of rhetoric and innovative public policy such as this one:

I understand that for many, a better quality of life comes from working in a good job. I want to help Arizona retain quality jobs and I’ll work to attract new businesses to our cities, towns and counties at a rate that is compatible with our environment and fair to the construction indsutry.

-Yawn- Sorry, dozed off there. Did I miss something? Anyway, the thing that our corresponent found funny on the site was this picture, entitled "Ron Drake - Casual." Notice the logo on the polo shirt? Yeah, it's a U of A logo. So, when is he a U of A fan? Was it when he attended and graduated from Northern Illinois University? Far be it from me to think that hs is all of a sudden "going native" for a mostly Southern Arizona district. Next he'll be telling us how much he loves Eegee's and bragging about his collection of Al Perry singles. Maybe it's not all political. Round about this time of year, thousands of our brothers and sisters from the Valley of the Yakes who can't stand us and can't imagine driving anywhere south of Baseline road suddenly become Wildcat fans. Que sera sera. NB - Somebody will write and tell me, "See, you Dummycrats can't even come up with anything to criticize him on except his shirt..." Well, if the guy would actually say something interesting, I'll find a more interesting criticism.|W|P|114252094483504853|W|P|No, I'm a Wildcat Fan All the Way, I Love that Tubby Smith...I Mean Merlin Olson|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/16/2006 09:00:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|No...I'm just saying that eleven months out of the year, folks in the greater Phoenix area seem to have no use for Tucson or the U of A, then all of a sudden call them "Our Wildcats" when tournament time comes around. That's all.

I also think it's convienient that a congressional candidate is all of a sudden a U of A fan when he needs votes in Tucson.

Man, Bored, you really never like what I have to say, do you?3/16/2006 10:53:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Mr. T...I figured the picture titles are self parody.3/16/2006 06:01:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|-sigh-

Mr or Mrs Bored...I was just joking a bit about the complaint, really...keep posting. But please, don't accuse me of being in a "circle jerk" when you often seem to be parroting the whole "all elected Democrats are spineless whimps" line so common on the blogosphere.

For example, in response to my post about Grijalva signing on to Feingold's censure resolution, you complained about a "meaningless gesture." Pray tell, what else should he be doing? Raising a militia to stage a coup?

Frankly, this sort of thing stops being constructive criticism, and edges dangerously close to the sort of whiny handwringing that has kept me away from Daily Kos.

As far as us Tucsonans complaining about Phoenix's attitude towards us, yes, it happens. Let me give you an anectdote, I could give you plenty more, but just one will do. I got stuck at the Phoenix airport, and I decided I had time to get my shoes shined. I go over there and the guy starts shining my shoes and sees that I had a copy of the Arizona Daily Star. He said "Why are you reading that, nothing hapens there..." I told him that I picked it up before I left Tucson. The guy started giving me all sorts of grief about how we were all stupid to live there, in the desert (like Phoenix is some forest paradise), and that Tucson "smells funny". I reminded the guy to stop trashing my town if he wanted a tip. He said "You don't need to be so stuck up about it."

Anyway, keep posting...but I need positive feedbadk...I'm sensitive.3/16/2006 10:19:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, forget the whole 'local' thing. I can think of several other reasons for Drake to go for U of A.

1. It's easier to get tickets, and he can actually go to a game without having to pass through airport security. Especially helpful if he shows up on the 'no-fly' list.

2. Be honest-- do you even know what town Northern Illinois University is located in?

3. The Wildcats win. Ever notice how politicians aren't just associated with local teams, but they are associated with WINNING local teams. Now, if he gets a picture taken with an Arizona Cardinals shirt on, now THAT would be news.

4. When U of A is winning, you can find lots of wildcat gear in all the stores. When they are losing, you can still find lots of wildcat gear, and it's on sale!.

5. The U of A games are on television, and you don't have to pay for them.

Well, yeah.... you're right. He wants to get votes. If polling data suddenly showed that there were a large number of U.C. Irvine grads in his district, I bet he'd even put on Anteater gear.3/17/2006 06:45:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|I'm wondering if a preponderance of Scotsdale Community College grads would lead to him wearing one of those odd Fighting Artichokes shirts.3/17/2006 11:37:00 AM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Hey Bored,

Exactly when should the Dems put forth their message? Now when no one is paying attention and the media is enjoying publishing all of the crap we have been yellling about for the past decade pretty much...or when voters start paying attention which is in August.3/15/2006 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Town of Oro Valley had its election yesterday, and Mayor Paul Loomis fought off a challenge from Amphitheater School Board Member Nancy Young Wright. Wright ran a good campaign and raised a great deal more money than Loomis. Wright made breaks to developers, particularly a bizarre deal given to Vestar Development Co., a central issue in her campaign. She managed 42% of the vote. The Vestar deal allows them to capture 45% of sales tax revenue from their development. This went beyond a regular package of incentives. This isn't "We'll give you a break on sewer fees" or something. Essentially, Oro Valley gave away its taxing and spending authority to a private entity. The deal was capped at $23.2 million (this in a community whose last budget was only $99 million), but there is little oversight over how Vestar spends the money and it sets a bad precedent. Vestar had made it clear that without this "incentive," they would not build the Oro Valley Marketplace, the development in question, at all. I guess that Vestar is a maginal company, always on the brink of bankruptcy. Why else would they have demanded the tax "incentive."? Vestar needs these tax breaks to build because they don't have the cash, I guess, but their political action committee had the cash to innundate voters with mailers and slickly produced DVDs. Along with the Loomis/Wright race, the Vestar development deal was on the ballot. A group called Stop Oro Valley Outrageous Giveaways, with the clumsy SOVOG acronym, formed and managed to force the deal onto the ballot. Unfortunately, they were up against a Vestar funded political action committee, and Oro Valley voters, for some reason, approved the deal. SOVOG looks at this as a bit of a victory though. They felt like this deal was approved with little public input (in the past, the Oro Valley Town council had been criticized for lack of public comment at hearings), and they at least made the public look at this deal. As much as we on this side of the political line love to complain about politicians being in the pocket of developers, voters have to learn to step up to when the time comes. No ammont of money or slick DVDs forces a citizen to vote for this sort of corporate welfare.|W|P|114243367005325517|W|P|Oro Valley: Vestar and Loomis Win|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/15/2006 01:33:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Actually, he's from down here.3/16/2006 02:01:00 AM|W|P| Michael Bryan|W|P|The voters of Oro Valley have shot themselves in the foot. The problem with this deal isn't its terms (though I generally disagree with such coroporate welfare without a quid pro quo), it is about the future bargaining position.

What developer isn't going to stick their hands out demanding a share of tax revenue on every new project? Now that Oro Valley has shown they're patsies, the parade of developers dunning them for a free ride won't end. Best of luck to OV in developing a healthy tax base in the future.3/14/2006 07:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Sen. Harry Mitchell has announced that he is stepping down as Arizona Democratic Party Chairman and running against Rep. J. D. Hayworth. Let the games begin. Hayworth spends an awful lot of space on his official congressional page criticizing Governor Janet Napolitano, probably looking forward to a US Senate race against her later. I've never been too sure that it was appropriate to do this, but now, it looks a bit premature, doesn't it?|W|P|114234713731321049|W|P|He's In!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/14/2006 10:43:00 AM|W|P| Tony GOPrano|W|P|Mark this prediction.......
JD Hayworth 60%
Harry Mitchell 40%

You heard it here first...3/14/2006 11:46:00 AM|W|P| Jane Arizona|W|P|Mitchell has been just about the only vocal Democrat in the Valley. Think he'll go strangely quiet now that he's a candidate?

It's like Arizona dems have become the Ellen Jamesian Society, lately.3/14/2006 12:00:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The second best part about Mitchell going into the race is the fact that Ted can post the Mitchell Poster. That was the only movie on MST3K that was watchable in its own right.3/14/2006 01:39:00 PM|W|P| Craig|W|P|phil -

I'm just guessing, but it probably won't make much difference overall.

Harry Mitchell was term-limited this time, so he wasn't running. There shouldn't be any fallout in the races with candidates shuffling around from one race to another. The candidates for D17 aren't going to have to adjust for a gap in the Democratic slate.

Where it might make a difference is that Mitchell will probably be too busy with his own campaign to do much stumping for D17 Dems in the general election. Especially since Sen. Mitchell will probably need to focus his attention on the parts of CD5 that aren't named Tempe.3/14/2006 03:38:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Tony, JD Hayworth had trouble cracking 60% against one of the regular bloggers here, who had no money and no name recognition.

Against a former state Senator who has served as head of the party and has the connections to be able to raise funds, he's in trouble. Mark my words.

Tedski:

J.D. running in a Senate race against Napolitano? Observation #1: She'd squish him like a fat little beetle (which is why he backed out of the gubernatorial contest). Observation #2: You perceive that McCain, win or lose on his Presidential run, plans to leave the Senate and not seek re-election.3/15/2006 12:41:00 AM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You know, we are so used to the DLC being the boogeymen of the campaign that sometimes we forget that they do not control everything.

Rahm called Harry because he thought that Harry would do the best in the district. However Rahm does not control the voters so let us let them decide.3/15/2006 07:30:00 PM|W|P| Rex Scott|W|P|"Move On" Democrats and DLC Democrats are both DEMOCRATS. I left the GOP six years ago because I was sick of all the "more Republican than thou" crap I had to take from the litmus-testers who insisted on labeling me a RINO because I had the temerity to be pro-choice, supportive of public schools and a conservationist.

Now that I am a Democrat, I am disgusted with the manner in which so-called progressives feel that it is their right to attack anyone to their right as not being enough of a Democrat. The natural byproduct of such behavior is losing elections.

By the way, I voted for Dean in the primaries in '04. His message of fiscal prudence and social justice, backed up by his record during five terms as Vermont's governor, was what appealed to me. Moreover, he didn't run the state trying to score ideological brownie points with the Left; he governed like a common-sense, results-oriented pragmatist.

Democrats like Napolitano are winning elections because they make wise choices about spending tax dollars, edit for content before they open their mouths and care little what Sean Hannity or Molly Ivins has to say about them.

Let's focus on electing all manner of Democrats and chucking Republicans out of office. "Compassionate conservative" rhetoric to the contrary, there ain't many Jim Jeffords clones left in that party! God, it must be lonely to be Sherwood Boehlert!3/15/2006 10:34:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|rex scott:

Don't assume that moderate Democrats can't win a primary including former Republicans. Case in point: Slade Mead, likely to win the Democratic primary for Superintendent of Instruction, and a moderate Republican legislator until the conservatives booted him out two years ago for supporting the governor's budget.3/14/2006 06:24:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A study from Northern Arizona University released this weekend concludes that 37% of voters are unfamiliar with the requirements of the so-called Protect Arizona Now act that voters passed in 2004. Today, some locales are having their first elections under the new restrictions, so many consider today the "kickoff" for the new voting requirements. 64% say that they have seen nothing in the news media about this. It doesn't suprise me, given local TV seems to have trouble covering any story more complex than the latest car accident or Wildcats basketball. But it also makes me wonder, what ever happened to all that Help America Vote Act money that the Seceretary of State's office is supposed to use for, you know, helping people vote? She seemed to have enough room to put her name and face really large on those mailers, think she could have spent some time informing people about this? All throughout the last century, public policy was about expanding voting rights. The Seventeenth Ammendment, Nineteenth Ammendment, Harrison v Laveen, the Voting Rights Act, the Twenty-Sixth Ammendment, all were aimed at getting more people to vote. In the early 1990's, we abolished the position of Deputy Registrar in this state and enabled people to register to vote almost anywhere. We've decided now that barefooted, sunstroked, impoverished border crossers are so scary that we need to dial back our voting rights. I know, I'll get a post from someone (Phx Kid, probably) that says "All you need is an ID, that's not a restriction..." Well, we'll see how the law actually gets applied. Will everyone be asked for ID? Will some ID's get more scrutiny than others? How much do you want to bet that there will be no coverage of how this law gets implemented until an upper-middle class Anglo gets turned away from the polls? Yes, cynical me. The reason why I get a bit paranoid about this is because this is the state of Operation Golden Eagle, a project in the 1960's where the Republican party actively tried to supress Black and Hispanic turnout by stationing official looking people at polling places to "check IDs." Even in the most recent presidential election, the Pima County Republicans phonebanked into the mostly Hispanic South Side of Tucson giving the wrong date for the election. Heck, I also get paranoid about this because when I first voted, they almost turned me away. Not because I was Hispanic (who the heck can tell with me anyway?), but because the elderly election judge insisted that I was too young to vote. This despite my name not only being on the voter rolls, but my name was also on the ballot for Precinct Committeeman. (Oh, first Republican that claims these are not "restrictions" on voting rights, see if he or she will agree that showing an ID and a background check to buy a gun is not a restriction of their Second Ammendment rights) Strange thing about this is that people voted these restrictions in on their own volition. Somebody, somewhere, who voted for PAN is going to be the first to complain about voting being too complicated now. The cynical bastard in me will have to resist laughing at him.|W|P|114234523157423488|W|P|Study: Many Voters Don't Understand Prop. 200 Restrictions|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/14/2006 07:19:00 AM|W|P| Jeff Stapleton|W|P|"Study: Many Voters Don't Understand Prop. 200 Restrictions"

Excellent. Mission Accomplished!3/14/2006 11:35:00 AM|W|P| the byce man|W|P|I just sort of disagree with the concept of registration in and of itself. Honestly, how much information does the government already have laying around? Probably enough to decide if you are old enough to vote, where you should vote, etc. All requiring people to register does is make it a pain in the ass.
Part of this, though is the fault of the parties. Not so much for presidential elections, but for city council and mid-term elections, when no one really knows what's going on, parties are really the only force getting people to vote. And almost without fail, they target the same people: those who have not moved and have voted before. I think the entire thing is fucked up, honestly, and skews election results.3/14/2006 12:11:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|*I* voted today. The people at the polling place were nice and I have two surveys to fill out now.3/14/2006 03:43:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|This could benefit either Israel Torres or Bruce Wheeler in the general election though:

Make it clear that this is Jan Brewer's interpretation of the law. Make it clear that she wrote these restrictions.

Because the first time people will get turned away is in the primary, and when they do, make sure they realize who to take it out on in the general.3/15/2006 07:40:00 PM|W|P| New American Rebel|W|P|Sorry, whether the law was intended to slight one race or another, its application, and the idea is awesome. I couldn't care less if you're from Mexico, Germany, Sweeden, Great Britain, Ireland, or what have you. If you're not an American citizen, you shouldn't be voting in our elections.

Second, I think registration is a GREAT idea. First, the eligible voters are by in large dumb and uninformed. That's one of the reasons why our Founders wrote a limited franchise into the Constitution. Granted, if that were still the law today, even I wouldn't be able to vote since I own no land, but the idea of excluding the dumb from making decisions that affect the entire State is brilliant.

Voters aren't dumb? Oh? I thought you just said they had no clue about the provisions on Prop. 202. They were also stupid enough to vote for Clean Elections Some of them are even dumb enough to vote for RINOs (like John McCain and Tom Horne) and Democrats. The ballot initiative process in Arizona has been an utter disaster.

Our fonders settled on a REPUBLIC, not a democracy because they knew that if the masses were involved in making every decision, they'd just muck it up. I'd say they've been proven right.3/13/2006 07:08:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was going to try to figure out a comment or elaboration on this, but why? Just let the man speak for himself:

I support Senator Russ Feingold's resolution to censure the President of the United States. Today's resolution reflects the mood of the American people who are demanding accountability from the President. This situation demands that the Democratic leadership speak strongly and clearly to protect the constitutional rights of the American people. This censure is not solely about wiretapping, it is the culmination of many negative impacts this Administration has had on our nation. Over the last five years, the American people's mistrust in our government has increased due to the failures in this Administration. President Bush has failed to be a leader in many areas. He lied about Iraq, was negligent before and after Hurricane Katrina, has hurt our seniors with a flawed Medicare drug benefit, and violated our privacy with illegal wiretapping. It is time that the President be held accountable and respond to the American people.

|W|P|114230249806996557|W|P|Grijalva Supports Feingold Resolution|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/13/2006 08:07:00 PM|W|P| Zelph|W|P|And where is Ed Pastor? Missing in action as usual?3/13/2006 04:04:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Sen. John Greene has dropped out of the Governor's race. According to a report on KJZZ this afternoon, Greene had trouble getting his usual allies in the business community to support him because they are resigned to a Len Munsil victory. Whatever happened to Don Goldwater? If this is the case, that moderate businessmen didn't rally to Greene's side, it would follow a pattern that is all too common among the Chamber of Commerce types in our state. The stages are like this:

1. The business community hunts for a moderate candidate
2. The buisiness community gives tepid and/or useless support
3. The buisiness community discovers that their candidate isn't doing well, probably due to lack of support
4. The business community abandons candidate to support conservative probable winner, thinking that they can get a good deal out of him or her
5. Conservative candidate wins
6. The buisiness community discovers that the conservative was actually serious about the stuff that he or she said during campaign
7. The business community cries to the few Democratic office holders about what happened to their party, and could you please help us pass a few bills?
8. The business community continues to support Republicans, and we go back to step 1

|W|P|114229217889082305|W|P|Now All Fourteen of His Supporters are Going to Have to Find Someone Else to Vote For|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/13/2006 11:02:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Barry Goldwater endorsed Karen English when she first ran for Congress.

That concludes my cool AZ knowledge.3/13/2006 06:42:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A couple of months back, I heard an interview with the President of the Southern Baptist Convention. He noted that he was the only head of a major denomination to come out for the war in Iraq, and it was because he was democratically elected by his flock. He said that more denominations would have been pro-war if it was just left up to a vote of parishioners. Of course, this neglects other issues, such as gay rights and abortion, where many denominations are more conservative than their members. These were positions he was okay with, so he didn't mind that though. I thought about that when I read this article in the Tucson Citizen about the reaction of conservative Roman Catholics to recent statements by bishops regarding illegal immigration. There is among some of the people quoted in the article policy differences and discomfort with Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony's rather radical call for civil disobedience. I can understand that, because it is similar to my discomfort with the church's position on the Protect Marriage Arizona ammendment. We Catholics, liberal and conservative, thrive on being ticked off at one or another political stance that the Church takes. And the Church would not be doing its job if it just took stands that made all of the parishioners happy. That's what Disneyland is for. But, one person quoted in the article particularly disturbed me:

Retired IBM manager Rob Haney, a parishioner at St. Thomas Catholic Church in Phoenix, also is strongly opposed to the bishops' stance on immigration. He feels the bishops are supporting "open borders" that would turn the United States into a "Third World Country."

"They (bishops) have no respect for the sovereignty of the country," Haney said. "They want more welfare from the federal government to aid illegal immigration."

By supporting immigration reform that would legalize millions of Latino immigrants, the bishops are undercutting their own stance against abortion, because Latinos tend to vote Democratic, Haney added.

"It makes no sense, " Haney said.

First of all, Mr. Haney seems to totally misunderstand why the immigrants are coming here. Few, if any, are signing up for welfare. This is because they are basically fugitives, and fugitives don't tend to willingly put their names and addresses on government sponsored lists. But Haney also doesn't stop with simple policy differences with Church leaders. He's angry because these aliens might become citizens and vote the wrong way. Evidently, in his copy of the Gospels, the Beatitudes have a codicil that says "none of this applies if you have political differences." Disgusting. Yes, I'll admit that church officials often have petty political motives behind what they do. I, for one, will be anxious to see if those three bishops that wanted to deny communion to John Kerry will be nearly as ready to deny it to Rudy Giuliani when he runs for president. Haney seems to think that the Church should only preach charity to people who support it politically (and at that, only political stances he personally supports). Charity is not supposed to be done for political reasons, or only given for people that we like. If it was, it wouldn't be charity, wouldn't it? Another thing I heard this weekend was an interview with Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. He was criticizing Cardinal Mahony's statements. First he claimed that the Church shouldn't be practicing charity with "their parishioner's jobs." As if there are millions of Amreicans who would love to pick strawberries or wash dishes. He also said that the Church is free to give communion to illegal immigrants (gee, thanks), but he doesn't support "harboring" and "smuggling." Who is harboring and smuggling? I figured out that his definition of harboring and smuggling is rather broad when he talked about two "Arizona church workers" who are on trial for "smuggling." He didn't name them, but he is probably refering to the case of Daniel Strauss and Shanti Sellz. Calling them "church workers" is probably a bit much. The group that Sellz and Strauss are with, No More Deaths, is an eccumenical organization tangentially affiliated with St. Mark's Presbyterian Church(a Protestant congregation that a Catholic Arch-Bishop from Los Angeles has no sway over), and the two of them are non-practicing Jews. To imply that the two of them were "directed" to do so by the Catholic Church or any other religious institution is silly. But aside from that, how is what the two of them did smuggling? They saw some people in trouble and tried to take them to someplace where they could get medical care. I don't call that smuggling, I call that being a decent human being. In the twisted universe of the anti-immigrant community, this makes them worse than coyotes. I mean, they must think it is worse because I don't see them getting nearly as angry about actual paid smugglers.|W|P|114226157645414693|W|P|We Are All For Charity and Stuff, Just Not for People We Don't Like|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/13/2006 12:43:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Why is it that those who profess to worship the God of Jesus always seem to find their reasons in the Old Testament?3/13/2006 02:23:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Elizabeth:

They pick and choose from that, too. For example, they forget the exhortation (in Deuteronomy 14:29) to feed the stranger who is within thy gates.3/13/2006 03:18:00 PM|W|P| GOPinsider|W|P|Does no one realize the Rob Haney is the Republican Chairman of Legislative District 11, a staunch supporter of Arizona Right to Life and one of the biggest campaign volunteers for Andrew Thomas in both his Attorney General and County Attorney races - although he got mad at Thomas recently for his failure to pursue the election fraud questions in the Orlich - McComish race.3/14/2006 03:11:00 AM|W|P| Tony GOPrano|W|P|Haney is the one who keeps trying to "sensure" Sen. John McCain. Haney spends all his time recruiting Precinct Committeeman using his "litmus" test (abortion). He engineered the takeover of the Maricopa County Republicans with proxies. Along with his pals, the "PAChyderm Coalition", a group of Libertarian leaning pols, they intend to take over the Republican Party in Arizona...3/12/2006 10:44:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|It's taken me a while to comment on this. A couple of weeks ago, Espresso Pundit had a short item on three of the Catholic Bishops who have responsibility over Arizona issuing a statement supporting the so-called Protect Marriage Arizona ammendment. He thinks that this is a watershed moment where we will someday look back on this and say that this is the day that Catholics started becoming an overwhelmingly Republican voting bloc. This seems to be a misunderstanding of the way Catholics think and vote in this country. It also is probably a healthy dose of wishful thinking, since the fastest growing voting group in this country is Hispanics, who are largely Catholic and Republicans keep making one-step-forward-two-steps-back inroads into the Latino community. I won't try to guess what Greg "Espresso Pundit" Patterson's denomination is, but given that he is married with kids, I'm guessing that it isn't Shaker. Something that I have noticed is that when a person tries to give me a lecture about how some liberal stance I have taken is in conflict with the church, or tries to tell me that a "good Catholic" (none of us are "good Catholics," that's what confession is for) should vote Republican, chances are that person is not a Catholic, only a conservative assuming that Catholic social teaching is confined to opposition to abortion and gay marriage. (The worst of this is George Bush using the term "culture of life," only thinking it applies to abortion and stem cell research. Doesn't he see it as ridiculous given his policies in Iraq and his love of the death penalty?) Many Catholics, "good" Catholics who attend mass regularly, disagree with the stances of the Church. This is something not just confined to liberals either, conservative parishioners suffer from the same sort of "Cafeteria Catholicism." Unfortunately, and this doesn't just apply to Catholics, many of us look to religion as a way to confirm whatever prejudices and lifestyle choices we were inclined to have anyway. So, I propose a deal on behalf of my fellow liberal Catholics. We will swallow your views of abortion and gay marriage, if conservatives adopt church views about the death penalty, war, poverty, conservation, rights of labor and the rights of migrants. Think we can work that out?|W|P|114218796548074947|W|P|I'm Ready to Make a Cynical Deal|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/13/2006 01:10:00 AM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.3/13/2006 01:13:00 AM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.3/13/2006 01:17:00 AM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:

Apparently you didn't read Ted's whole post. Would you also be willing to include more spending on anti-poverty programs (especially since poor women are much more likely to have abortions than rich women). Further, 61% of women having an abortion have previously had a live birth, so clearly, as one of the conclusions of the linked study indicates, economics plays a key role. As such, it is hard to suggest otherwise than that Republican economics that reduce funding for child care and ignore rising health care costs play a role (hint: cost of a birth, even if there are no complications, for a person with no health insurance: $3,000 minimum at most hospitals, cost of abortion: $500.)

If you are a woman, married or not, with kids, and don't have health insurance, the decision to get an abortion may boil down to simple economics. If your financial situation isn't very good, and you have a choice between $500 now and thousands in a few months, what do you suggest?

Now, here is my deal on a bill: A universal healthcare system for Arizona. And I'm willing to concede this: Put abortion clinics outside the purview of the system, so that birth only costs the copay cost for the hospital (say, $100?) while the abortion still costs $500 as it does now.3/13/2006 12:38:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Phx Kid, Eli is correct. Most women do get an abortion for the economic reason. If you (and I do mean you not a nonspecific you) want to truly reduce abortions, help raise the minimum wage, help raise the chances of a child support being paid (one of my former Qwest co-workers got a wage garnished child support check of $26-28 a month since her ex husband deliberately got a low paying job in the service industry where he did not have his tips garnished which apparently was a lot harder. She did not persue this because she was scared of what he would do to the children. I saw the scars, I do not blame her.) Also help get a single payer system created for the state/country, and of course making sure that child care is availible for working mothers (another co-worker of mine had to pay huge amounts because her two kids had been born too closely together for the state to consider them separate.) Work to make sure students also have access to comprehensive sex education that explains to them everything they need to know for when they become adults. Work for Plan B to be availible OTC.

If you truly, deep down inside, want to reduce the number of abortions, demanding it be illegal will do nothing to reduce them. And in fact will do little more then harm women and the children many will be leaving behind.3/13/2006 01:55:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:

You are assuming that I would agree with you that abortion is a social injustice. In fact, if a child is not brought into the world in the first place, then it is hard to see how there is any injustice done-- there is nothing, just oblivion. The net result is no different than if, for example, the parents had gone out bowling that night instead of spending the night cuddled in bed. On the other hand, I do see a real and measurable social injustice done to someone who is forced to be pregnant (i.e. sick, in pain, and in some danger) if you make them remain that way for months. As for adoption, I agree that if someone wants to adopt, that this has the benefit of providing a child to someone who otherwise might not have one, but forcing someone to be pregnant and then telling them that if they sign over their child then you will pay their bill raises its own ethical questions.

And I'm not against working to reduce the number of abortions, it's just that the successes we have had in this regard over the past decade (the number of abortions have dropped since the early 1990's), via sex education, birth control and family planning, have been opposed by conservatives.

And I do see an economic problem with generationally unbalancing our population (for example, military recruiters are now having a tough time because there are a million less 18-24 year olds than there were in 2000, and we all know about Social Security) but my answer which certainly serves social justice well is this: instead of solving this problem by forcing women who don't way children to have them anyway, let's 1: do what I said, so that those who want but can't afford them, will have them, and 2: increase legal immigration quotas so that we fill up America with people who want to come here.3/13/2006 01:59:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:

Sex ed has changed things, already. We really began pushing it in schools in the early 1990's, and even anti-abortion websites will acknowlege that abortions are down by a quarter since reaching their peak about 1992, and that has been led by a decline in teen pregnancy.

I would just argue that if the sex ed that we've had, has worked, then why not have more of it (the same argument that Republicans are always using about tax cuts, even though from my point of view about all the Bush tax cuts have done is create a big deficit while companies have invested all their tax cut money in building factories and hiring workers in Asia-- but that is an argument for another day.)3/13/2006 10:58:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Phx Kid-
Actually I said most not all are the result of economics. Is there a problem with reading what I said?

Here is a study done by the CDC in 2003. Read it and you can see why we said economics are such a factor.


Also it is not 'doctor' it is doctor. Any doctor puts the needs of the woman above her fetus because she is the patient.

The way you talk it seems that you would do well to remember there is a woman in all of this. A woman who has to take the enormous risk to her health to have a child. Not all women are able to do it. She should have all medical treatment availible to her up to and including an abortion if she feels it is necessary.

This is the last I am going to say on the matter on this blog. Go to mine if you insist on talking of it further.3/12/2006 10:00:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Some members of my adoring public have been begging me to throw my hat in the ring for Arizona Democratic Party Chair. I have to say that I will be unable to run for State Party Chair because I need to spend more time with my family. I know that I am an unmarried man with no children, but still, I need to spend more time with the wife and kids. Besides, it would interfere with my main ambition: becoming Major League Soccer commissioner so I can change the new dumb name of the New York team. My comments on that one here.|W|P|114218338207568567|W|P|Sherman Statement|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/12/2006 07:21:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|About time you start spending time with the wife and kids Ted. They need more then the vast wealth you have you know.3/12/2006 07:37:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I don't like to give corporate officials credit for anything, but once in a while one of them does something that deserves actual congratulations. US Airways President and CEO Doug Parker is not taking his bonus this year. The bonus would amount to $770,000. He decided that he couldn't in good concience take the bonus when he was asking employees to take a pay cut. The sad thing about this is that it is so unusual that we notice it.|W|P|114217469523790616|W|P|Wow, Actual Corporate Responsibility|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/13/2006 01:07:00 AM|W|P| Michael Bryan|W|P|That's not corporate responsibility; that's personal conscience. If the corporation were being responsible, the compensation committee wouldn't even allow such a bonus to be on the table to be spurned. The problem is seldom the integrity and ethics of corporate management, it is the incentives that the laxity of corporate governance gives to management to look to the short-term, to enrich themselves at the expense of owners and stakeholders, and to fail to plan for long-term responsible growth of the enterprise.3/11/2006 09:50:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I don't have any idea what to make of this. To the left is the picture of Jan Brewer that has been on her site, on the numerous materials that she has sent to voters (only part of her official duties, of course!) and on the wall of her office. To the right, a brand spanking new picture of her from her website. The old pic has been scrubbed from her site. Even if you go to the Wayback Machine, it can't be found. I was only able to dig it up because I had downloaded it before. It is still available on the Arizona Republican Party's site. I won't say anything about this. I won't even comment on the timing of this. I'll leave that up to you, my loyal readers.|W|P|114213977089484063|W|P|The "New" Jan Brewer|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/12/2006 01:29:00 AM|W|P| Zelph|W|P|The best ever recent picture of Jan Brewer can be found here.

I downloaded it from the Arizona Daily Star in January 2006.3/12/2006 07:32:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Good to know a Republican supports Clean Elections. Or, is she one of those that enjoys taking the money but will campaign against it the next time she gets a chance?3/12/2006 11:20:00 AM|W|P| AZ Gringo|W|P|I always thought her old web site photo made her look like she'd just been goosed.

I think we should all use the one Zelph saved from now on. Great work, Zelph.

Brewer is an anti-democracy zealot. She deserves to go down hard.3/12/2006 04:12:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Have to say this, that new photo makes her look like Mrs. Jackson, my marine magnet teacher in high school.

Of course Mrs. Jackson was a million times cooler.3/13/2006 01:02:00 AM|W|P| Michael Bryan|W|P|Oh, we're all thinking it, why not say it. Looks like Jan has had a little 'work' and is updating her image for the election. Jeez, I can almost see the sutures. I don't see any problem with dishing on this considering the 'metrosexual' bullshit the GOP slung at Kerry. We gotta start playing by the new rules instead of holding ourselves above the fray, so nobly, so unelectably...

So, nice face lift, Jan! How many is that now? Worried your party is gonna dump you for a trophy Secretary?3/13/2006 03:55:00 PM|W|P| GOPinsider|W|P|It looks like Botox and a facelift... but it's still not as deceiving as the picture she used on her campaign signs in 2002... I think that was an old Glamour Shot.3/11/2006 09:11:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This may all be premature speculation on the part of the people that told me, but what the heck...that's what blogs are for, right? The earlier speculation was that should Harry Mitchell step aside as State Democratic Party Chair, Fred DuVal would take his place. DuVal is a nationally recognized party power broker who served as White House Director of Protocol for Bill Clinton. He had been talked about as a possible candidate for Secretary of State, but decided late last year not to run. DuVal has also apparently taken his name out of consideration for party chairman as well. I have heard that Mitchell has not made a decision yet. But the fact that DuVal felt the need to say he wasn't available makes me think that at least some leaders in the party think that he has. Here's a way to turn the discussion around: does the unavailability of a successor the caliber of DuVal make Mitchell less likely to abandon the chairmanship? So, where does the party turn for a chairman? The interim chairman would be Peggy Toomey Hammann, who has already been interim chairman once when Jim Pederson stepped aside to run for the US Senate. Her main duty would be to preside over the meeting where a permanent chair is elected. But who would it be? The idle speculation is that David Waid, the current Executive Director of the party, would run for chairman. There isn't, as far as I know, precedent for this. Of course, we've had EDs that might as well have been chairs, but that was de facto rather than de jure. Waid has shown himself to be a capable executive director, weathering the departure of Pederson mid-term and managing the state party's activities in the off-year elections. However, will the activists accept a paid staff member being thrust into party leadership? The talk of Waid as chairman may be more speculation of people with too much time on their hands, as happens often in politics, or it could be an indication that Mitchell is close to an announcement that he is running agasinst J. D. Hayworth. NB - This would be the third party chairman the Democrats have had over the last year. We have been making fun of the Republicans for their turnover in staff (at least three EDs since Matt Salmon became chair), but the chairman has remained the same all of that time. Of course, our chairs have stepped down to run for higher office, their guy ran for chair because he didn't want to get beaten by Janet Napolitano again.|W|P|114213855940668112|W|P|State Party Reshuffle?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/11/2006 11:05:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Former Serbian and Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milošević was found dead in his cell this morning. He was in the middle of a trial for war crimes carried out in the 1990s in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Milošević was a Communist Party official in Kosovo early in his career. After looking around at the grievances between Serbs and Albanians in the region, he came to the realization that hate for that neighbor that looks and talks different trumps talk of world revolution any day. Sounds like a certain congressional candidate I know. A phenomenon that I have found fascinating is the proliferation of pro-Milošević websites. I found one a while ago that also supported far right Russian nationalism and Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko (this site by an American by the way), I can't find that one. But I found these helpful, rational sites. I'm waiting for them to claim that MI-5 had something to do with his death.|W|P|114210151061051814|W|P|"Slobo" Found Dead In Cell|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/11/2006 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|When I see internecine conflicts between the pachyderms, I have the same feeling my mom did when she was watching a World Cup match between France and Italy a few years ago: can I root for both of them to lose? Well, in this case I can, and it's a big possibility. Of course, it means that Randy Graf wins. The big fight on the CD 8 Republican card is between Mike Hellon and Steve Huffman to be the moderate alternative to Graf. Mainstream Republican leaders, both locally and nationally, are worried about a Graf victory, since they believe it is as good as handing the seat back to the Democrats. Even Jim Kolbe has voiced his concern about a Graf victory, leading some to wonder if Kolbe would endorse a Democrat against him if he were nominated. The trouble is, with two strong moderate candidates, Graf could easily come out of the primary as the nominee. The pressure is on for one of the two to drop out. When I say one of the two, I mean Mike Hellon. The powers that be see Huffman as a stronger candidate, conservative enough to be credible among primary voters, but without the more extreme rhetoric and record of Graf. Word is out that Kolbe and John McCain have been asking Hellon to drop out. Hellon hasn't made any indications that he will drop out, however. Some are saying that this is personal. Last year, the term-limited Huffman let it be known that he was interested in the state senate seat still occupied by Hellon's ex-wife, Toni Hellon. This isn't exactly the sort of thing that endears you to the Hellon family, and it isn't the sort of thing you would do if you were on very good terms in the first place. The conflict has stayed out of the press for the most part. A couple of weeks ago, however, during the vote to extend the life of the "TIF" district for Rio Nuevo, there were comments in an article in the Arizona Daily Star from Sen. Hellon questioning the way the deal was cut. Huffman has taken the lead on the Rio Nuevo issue and it was seen by some as a way for her to undercut her ex's opponent. Some Hellon supporters think that House Speaker Jim Weiers's support for Rio Nuevo is only his way of weighing in on Huffman's side. This ignores the fact that Weiers had been a co-sponsor of the origninal TIF legislation years ago. Does that sound totally obscure? Does that sound like people reading way too much into things? Yeah, but that gives you an idea of the schoolyard backbiting that we'll see more of over the next few months. They don't come together now, and they'll have to come together around Graf after the primary.|W|P|114209435998768965|W|P|Huffman v Hellon: UFC Cage Action!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/12/2006 11:07:00 AM|W|P| Rex Scott|W|P|Mike Hellon is a former national committeeman and a very shrewd person. He is also quite principled and doubtless made the decision to enter this race based on both his analysis of his chances and the thought that he could make a difference if he won. If he dropped out, he would be admitting that he had miscalculated in the first area and that someone else could do a better job. Couple those two areas of consideration with the fact that both Hellons actively dislike Huffman and I can't see him dropping out. Besides, you can win that primary with 35-40% of the vote. Hellon has as much a chance of doing that as Huffman in a district where both of them likely have equal name ID. But...I don't think either one can beat Graf even if the other one drops out. Today's Arizona GOP favors a candidate such as Graf and he will be their nominee.3/12/2006 09:03:00 PM|W|P| Rex Scott|W|P|Appreciate the feedback, Roger. I am, actually, a former Republican and know both of these candidates from my tenure in the GOP. They are BOTH fundamentally decent people and I especially appreciate (since I work in the public schools) what Huffman has done to support education, often in opposition to those in the Maricopa-led House leadership. However, they are both doctrinaire conservatives on most other issues. They would both be more right-wing than Kolbe, although Gentleman Jim did a good job in disguising himself as a "moderate" by voting in favor of most pro-choice positions, supporting the National Endowment for the Arts and supporting gay rights while accumulating a horrendous record in the areas of education, the environment, taxes and health care. Graf would be Trent Franks with patent-leather hair and that IS the candidate who triumphs in today's GOP. "Moderates" thought they could find some rapprochement with these folks, but watch how many primaries "moderates" win from here on out.3/10/2006 06:40:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Gale Norton resigned today as Head Despoiler and Seceretary of the Interior for the Bush Administration. She made sure to tell the press that this has nothing to do with Jack Abramoff. And I believe her. Oh wait, I don't.|W|P|114204187156338175|W|P|I Guess In Tribute We Should Go Strip Mine in a Wilderness Area|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/10/2006 10:49:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I nominate you to be the first to go to Mars then Phx Kid. :)3/10/2006 01:29:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Senator Marilyn Jarrett has died of a stroke. Despite her being on the opposite side of just about everything from me, my condolences go out to her husband Howard and her children and grandchildren.|W|P|114202299004385575|W|P|Sen. Marilyn Jarrett|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/14/2006 03:49:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Second your condolences.

Liberals and conservatives all go home to the same God after we leave this earth, and in the context of eternity, all the bitter struggles that seem so all-important right now probably pale into insignificance.3/10/2006 06:52:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Democrats that tend to irritate people like me fall into two categories: the Joe Lieberman type that yeah, tends to vote with us eighty or ninety percent of the time, but picks out poll tested issues here and there to show independence. The tendency of this type to run to the nearest microphone to show their independence by trashing and undermining other members of the party is even more irritating. The second is the Henry Cuellar type. They vote the right way only once, when they vote for House Speaker, Board Chairman or whatever the equivalent is in the body they serve in. After that, they can't be counted on to go with us on any issue, ever. The media will talk as though they are deal makers or moderates, but those titles imply that you to actually vote with the Democrats once in a while. These types love to think themselves "Mavericks," but it's really hard to call yourself a maverick when you are helping the people who run everything. Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon is the second type, the Cuellista. At first, I was willing to cut the guy a break the way I did for Paul Johnson when he was mayor of Phoenix. Phoenix is a more conservative town than Tucson is, so I can't expect the guy to be Tom Volgy or George Miller. Two years ago, I was ready to totally give up on the man when he endorsed Andrew Thomas for Maricopa County Attorney. This is a guy that wrote books about how women should know their place, and seems to be more willing to prosecute four-dollar-an-hour migrants than the trigger happy yahoos who take them prisoner. There is nothing in Andrew Thomas that should lead a Democrat in this day and age to support him, but somehow Gordon found a way to. Now, there is a rumor that Gordon will endorse the Protect Marriage Arizona Initiative. What the heck for? I'm sorry, I don't think the city of Phoenix is so conservative that Gordon not endorsing this would somehow hurt him in an election. In fact, the City of Phoenix has domestic partnership benefits for its employees (which this initiative would outlaw). If he really believed in what the initiative said, he would have already worked to get rid of those. This smacks more of Gordon trying to show how close he is to Republicans, particularly Gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil, than any sort test of conscience or going with his constituents. Here, various forms of domestic partnership recognition have been supported by Supervisor Ray Carroll, Mayor Bob Walkup, and former Councilman Fred Ronstadt. All of these are Republicans. Are Tucson Republicans more liberal than Phoenix Democrats? Is there a major Democratic issue which Phil Gordon has been willing to associate himself with, or is he going to give George Bush a big kiss on his next visit to Phoenix, a la Cuellar? NB - I have no trouble with moderate or even conservative Democrats. I worked on Marsha Arzberger's campaign in 2000. She's a great example of a conciencious, conservative Democrat. I don't like her environmental votes, for example, but she is representing her constituency and it also comes from the way she was brought up. I can handle that. The ones that bug me are these folks that seem to go out of their way to show independence, as if some how voters are so stupid that they won't notice they are Democrats. Or even worse, as if they are ashamed that they are Democrats.|W|P|114200119275355005|W|P|So, Why Even Bother?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/09/2006 06:54:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The talk about Sen. Harry Mitchell running against J. D. Hayworth is still only that, talk. People I have spoken to that are close to him tell me he is far from making a final decision on the matter. He has family considerations here. He's been in political office for quite some time now, and was, until now, looking forward to a life that is a bit quieter. There is now a group of folks (saying "organization" may be a bit too strong) that have put up a website called Draft Harry Mitchell for Congress. The aim seems to be to show Senator Mitchell that there is a groundswell of people ready to support his candidacy. The site, as far as I know, is only a day old but has twenty five posts asking Mitchell to run. Some of the messages seem to be a bit cheesy, but darnit, I want sycophancy like that! I was involved in the Draft Clark movement in 2003. If you remember, there were also "Draft Hillary" and "Draft Gore" movements that year. The main difference was that Clark actually wanted to run for president and the other two didn't. The website can be a useful tool to show the press and political pros that there is interest, but I don't know if it will necessarilly prompt Mitchell to run if he isn't otherwise inclined to do so. But, if this creates interest in the race, more power to them. NB - Two notes on the responses to the last Mitchell post: I don't think he'll resign his Senate seat to run. He will have to step down as state party chair though. I have no idea if Hayworth will be indicted.|W|P|114195703649403508|W|P|J. D. Hayworth Left the Door Open, Now there is a Harry Mitchell Draft|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/10/2006 02:54:00 PM|W|P| Jane Arizona|W|P|What do we know about Harry Mitchell and the issue of eminent domain?3/09/2006 02:09:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Yesterday's discussion on an immigration bill in the Democratic caucus:

Rep. Steve Gallardo (D-Phoenix): This bill is sh*t. Rep. Linda Lopez (D-Tucson): I would like to remind the members that the mikes are on. Gallardo: This bill is still sh*t.

|W|P|114193907929402493|W|P|My Thoughts Exactly|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/09/2006 11:59:00 PM|W|P| Craig|W|P|LOL! If I lived in his district (I'm in LD17) he'd have my vote, for honesty alone.3/09/2006 03:44:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I get the word from the street, you know, because I'm right there man. I'm from where the life is real. Just like Howard Devoto: I am the street where you live. Anyway, the word on the street, well, maybe just Central Avenue or West Washington, is that Arizona Democratic Party Chairman Harry Mitchell will be stepping aside to run against J. D. Hayworth. Mitchell had been the phenominally popular Mayor of Tempe before serving in the State Senate. Hayworth, on the other hand, has been turning in poor polling numbers for a man who is constantly on television and has been in congress for over a decade. One early poll showed Mitchell beating Hayworth 43-42, and even showed Hayworth struggling against Scottsdale attorney Larry King. Mitchell's popularity among Tempe voters would make him a formidable candidate against Hayworth. In fact, the only thing I can think of that would make it hard for Mitchell to win this seat would be if the Republicans nominated another popular former Tempe mayor. Oh...I spoke too soon. See what happens when I mention stuff on this blog? Former Tempe mayor Neil Giuliano has talked about running against Hayworth in the Republican primary. Giuliano may be too moderate to win a his party's primary, however. It is difficult enough to beat an incumbent congressman in a primary (Arizona's last and only primary casualty was Sen. Henry Fountain Ashurst in 1940), that much harder when you don't exactly excite the base of your party. I also find it hard to believe that an openly gay candidate can win a Republican congressional primary, especially in the East Valley. Yes, I know, but Jim Kolbe was in office for years before he was outed. He also had had to fight harder in primaries than any long time congressman should expect to since then. This is one of those seats that makes me seriously entertain the possibility of a Democratic takeover of the house. Congressional District 5, which includes Scottsdale, Tempe and Fountain Hills, is not exactly an area that would traditionally be considered competitive, but there are seats like this (Tom Delay's seat and Duke Cunningham's former seat are others) that are good "steals" for the party. A few of these here and there, plus a near-table run in more competitive areas, could flip enough seats to give a narrow Democratic victory. Hey, one can always hope.|W|P|114190343121421621|W|P|Mitchell for Congress?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com3/09/2006 05:30:00 AM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|If that is the case, and Harry resigns now, Meg will be recommended and probably will take his place in the Senate. Eddie will also be the most likely person to replace Meg giving both the advantage of incumbency come Nov and a chance to take the entire D17 slate back.3/09/2006 12:50:00 PM|W|P| Jane Arizona|W|P|Could Giuliano run as an independent? There's a large independent and moderate base in CD5.

Of course, fundraising would be difficult... but he's got a lot of name recognition and contacts...3/09/2006 12:51:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You never know Tom, if LD17 does not give any other names? Especially since you know how a certain person can be?3/09/2006 11:22:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well Phil, it was a thought. :)