4/29/2006 08:20:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Ernesto Portillo Jr. had a small bit on me this morning castigating me for castigating the Star. Even better, he spelled my last name right. If they misspelled my name in an item about misspellings, a smart ass like me would have had a field day. I think Portillo missed my point though. I have heard gripes from several reporters that Jim Pederson is "never in Tucson" (whether it be cs or sc), and sometimes this ends up in print. It is silly given how often Pederson is down here, and it seemed sillier to allude to that on a weekend when Pederson was in Tucson and even had a press conference. I also have to wonder where the complaints are about Jon Kyl, who despite being a University of Arizona graduate, seems to have forgotten where Tucson was until it became obvious that Pederson was running. I also have to give some props to Portillo. I have a great deal of respect for him and his parents, who are family friends. I hope that his byline on the Political Notebook is an indication that he will be more involved with day-to-day political coverage at the Star. As many of you know, I have had serious problems with political coverage (or the non-existence of it) at the morning paper, this has been despite some very good reporters on the political beat. Maybe the Star's moving Portillo to the Political Notebook is an indication that the editors are taking political coverage seriously again. Oh, Neto, if you are going to quote my blog...at least give the name of it. It's all about traffic, right? NB - Although they spelled my name right, the Star, Tucson Citizen, Arizona Republic and Tucson Weekly have confused me and my brother in the past. The Weekly's was the most amusing, since it was in an item complaining that Kathleen Dunbar confused me with him.|W|P|114632537581146232|W|P|Look Ma, I Made the Paper!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/29/2006 09:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|what is the deal with all the "Janet was not tops in the women Prez polls?" Last I checked she was running for re-election for GOVERNOR rather then President.4/29/2006 10:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Hey, Kyl comes down here all the time. Don't you remember his visit to La Paloma with your friend Cheney?4/29/2006 04:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Sorry, Kid, I don't count hanging out at a tony country club connecting with the voters.4/30/2006 02:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Why so sensitive about the name, Tod?4/29/2006 07:13:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A correspondent wrote me to point out something a bit odd about Patty Weiss's list of endorsements. For obvious reasons, this person's name cannot be known at this time. Okay, it's John Verkamp. Okay, for obvious reasons, it isn't. If you go to Weiss's web page, there is a hefty list of endorsements by many members of the community (as well as members of her staff, I hope they endorse her...). The list also includes several people named Weiss and Gelenberg. Does that count? I guess she wants to not run into the problem that Fred Ronstadt ran into and show us that her family does, in fact, support her. The list also includes Celinda Lake. Celinda Lake? That is her Washington based pollster. I suppose it would have been embarasing if she paid Lake all that money to do her polling and then Lake went and endorsed Francine Schacter. Some of Patty's supporters are so enthused about her candidacy that they have endorsed her twice. For example: former reporter Ann-Eve Pedersen is listed twice, under different spellings even! Author and part-time Tucsonan Andrew Greeley is also an ethusiastic supporter, listed as Andrew Greeley and Fr. Andrew Greeley. Former Shoebomb lead singer Melissa Manas is so supportive that she also wanted to be named twice. My brother likes to brag about the guys from Calexico being constituents, but do you see them listing their names twice? I look over Jeff Latas's and Gabrielle Giffords's lists and I see not one name repeated. I don't see how either one of them expect to win the race if their supporters aren't enthusiastic enough to endorse them twice. They ought to just quit now.|W|P|114632272771347545|W|P|They Like Her So Much, They Endorsed Her Twice!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/29/2006 09:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|Well, dear Celinda liked them so much, she donated twice! (fec.gov)

1 . Lake, Celinda
12/22/2005 $500.00
Washington, DC 20036
Lake Research Partners/pollster [Contribution]
PATTY WEISS FOR CONGRESS
[View Image]

2 . Lake, Celinda
12/13/2005 $500.00
Washington, DC 20003
self/political consultant [Contribution]
GIFFORDS FOR CONGRESS4/29/2006 10:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger WTF|W|P|Oh, come on. Get a grip. Both Latas and Giffords had names repeated, and have staff members listed. Why are you attacking Weiss llike some school girl catfight? How childish.

She just got that page up and likely hasn't had time to skim for errors. At least she actually asked permission to post people's names and did not just post whoever donated like the Latas campaign did. Latas had Barbara Tellman's name listed twice for nearly 4 months and you never mentioned that.

Celinda Lake likely donated after she saw the polling that Patty was in the lead. First she donated to Giffords. Nothing wrong with that. I have donated to three campaigns myself because I want them all to be viable until I decide who it is I want to support.4/29/2006 02:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger WTF|W|P|I went through Weiss' list. Out of 833 supporters listed, 16 are duplicate. It looks like a database issue. When the supporter filled out the volunteer form if you fill it out slightly differently it can create two entries. Either that or when they donated. Easy mistke for the webmaster not to catch it. Deleting the duplicates, she still has 817 supporters listed, more than any other candidate that I am aware of.

I donated to her campaign and she was classy enough NOT to list me as a supporter so I imagine she has even more that are donating or thinking of endorsing that aren't even listed.

She also has the best website of any candidate. Latas' site is not bad but Giffords and all the Republican ones have no meat on them. Shacter doesn't even use complete sentences in her bio section which makes her look stupid. I don't imagine she will have too many educators and English instructors endorse her. She writes on her website like she campaigns, not much enthusiasm or focus.4/30/2006 06:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TooBlue4U|W|P|There ARE TWO Andrew Greeleys. One's a priest. The other his cousin. Thanks for playing.

This is the kind of thing people talk about when they're worried about their candidate or when there just isn't anything bad to say about people like Latas and Weiss.4/30/2006 08:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Geez louise people, he is just joking around. *rolls eyes* Ted likes to make jokes, and be snarky. Why else would this blog be so freaking popular? This is free publicity for each campaign, you really think the candidates are going to complain he was teasing them?4/30/2006 10:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|Yes - two Andrew Greeley's - the priest/author and the PR consultant who's a full-time Tucsonan.

Kind of funny that Melissa Manas would be listed twice since she is Patty's webmaster.5/01/2006 09:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Lars Pederson is also listed up at the top with a bio, and then again in the listing.5/06/2006 10:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Hey Tedski...

But did you see how both Giffords and Latas have the same person endorsing them? (Jorge Garcia, unless they have corected this since I last viewed the websites)4/28/2006 03:03:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Lefty Progressive Pooh-bah Kevin Spidel has revealed the name of the mysterious individual who wishes to run against Jim Pederson in the Democratic primary: former Senator John Verkamp. Spidel says that my research was not very complete, but maybe it was all part of my plan to get him to reveal the name. Yeah, Spidel fell right into the trap I laid for him. Verkamp was part of a gang of moderate Republican senators in the middle to late 1990's. Remember moderate Republican legislators? Who knew we would look back on the Jane Hull years with such nostalgia? The senators that Verkamp ran with were mostly named Sue, so they were quickly dubbed the "Sue Nation." Verkamp, for obvious reasons not named Sue, was given the moniker "Boy Named Sue." Spidel reports that Verkamp has been making the rounds in progressive circles in Phoenix and will be at anti-war actions over the next few weeks to get his signatures. Good luck to him, but I don't know if he's got the oomph to put all of this together over the next six weeks. NB - I'm lucky that Spidel spilled the beans on this. Otherwise, I would have had to make another guess...progressive party switcher and former legislator from Northern Arizona...hmmm..."Buckey" O'Neill?|W|P|114626369324304271|W|P|Boy Named Sue for Senate?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/28/2006 03:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I have to wonder about his sincerity in terms of even being a Democrat. As I recall, he was not term limited out, but chose not to run for re-election when they drew the district lines because Flagstaff was thrown in with the reservation. He retired because he concluded (correctly) that a Republican couldn't win from that district. But if he wanted to switch parties then, it's not like a Democrat from Flagstaff won't be listened to by voters on the reservation (just ask Ann Kirkpatrick.) It's more a matter of he wasn't willing to run for the legislature as a Democrat. That immediately makes his 'progressive' credentials suspect.4/28/2006 04:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Oh goodie. The ideological purity test. That's always fun.

Will he get a lame acronym-cum-epithet too? Is it DINO or perhaps something more creative?4/28/2006 05:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kevin|W|P|yup... fell into the trap. spilled it from the pressure of the rum and the rebellion. not so much the romanism.4/28/2006 07:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|BNS?4/28/2006 11:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|boredinaz:

Actually, I have no problems with former Republicans running as Democrats, IF I believe their conversion is sincere. I voted for Wes Clark in the 2004 primary and intend to vote for Slade Mead this year.

My problem is when I smell a rat. Verkamp made the specific decision not to run for re-election because he didn't feel he could win as a Republican in the newly redrawn district. Not because he thought he couldn't win as a person who was from the quarter of the district that is not on the reservation, or whatever, but because he couldn't win as a Republican. So at that time he placed party loyalty to the GOP ahead of a desire to serve his constituency and an opportunity to continue doing so if he'd switched parties then.

So, it's not about the party switching, it's about the WHY he is switching parties. I smell a rat, and when I heard the name the thought popped into my head that the GOP could be setting him up to run against Pederson in the primary for the purpose of running a smear campaign.

I'm not saying that I have any evidence that this is so, but neither do you have any proof it's not.4/29/2006 09:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|Kevin didn't stand a chance, sensei!

Sooooo, what is the deal with Verkamp? He get religion or something?

Why the Filp Flop, er change of heart?

I'm all for a good tussle in the primary, as long as most of the focus is on how bad Bush/Kyl is and how we are going to turn things around.

Getting the policy ideas out there and forming a real platform using all the candidates to promote it and get behind the winner.

Is that too much to ask? Yea, I figured it was . . .4/29/2006 07:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I collected my thoughts about Verkamp running for Senate and posted them here4/30/2006 11:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Nonpartisan|W|P|Anybody remember what Verkamp said when he decided not to run? "Maybe if my name were John Yazzie Begay." Um, not funny, John.

Anybody remember when he got pulled over in Flagstaff with a blood alcohol level of over twice the legal limit? Or the second time that happened?

Now if Randall Gnant had decided to run, I'd be all about it. But Verkamp? I voted for the guy every election he ran, but he's simply not qualified enough, or together enough, to run for Senate against Pederson.4/30/2006 02:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Oh boy. Even better than the ideological purity test ... the conspiracy theory.

Excellent! Thanks for making my day, eli.4/30/2006 10:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|I would say he's probably sincere about this. I ran into Verkamp about a year ago and he was raving about the book "What's the matter with Kansas?" and talking about how the GOP had deserted him. Not really a surprise that he's gone all the way to the other side now. Of course that doesn't mean he has a prayer of winning the primary.5/02/2006 08:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Deepthroat|W|P|I know he's sincere. I have read his position paper on the issues, and he represents the Democratic Party 100% better than Jim "I'm an Independent" Pederson.

Pederson is not anti-war, and he's not running an anti-Bush campaign. He doesn't realize that all other issues will fall into place after these 2 cancers on our society are eradicated.5/04/2006 01:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger union guy|W|P|I think we've missed one of the major points in this discussion: why would anyone, especially a progressive, actually support Verkamp at this point?

Jim Pederson is not perfect, but he is viable. Verkamp will never be able to raise enough money to even compete with Pederson or Kyl, so why aren't Spidel and other progressives encouraging him to run for an office that he can actually win and create change? Why isn't Verkamp running against Renzi or for Secretary of State or State Treasurer? Is this run just symbolic and, if so, why back it?

We need real change, not symbolic change. Good candidates too often run for offices they can't win to make a point, when they could be making change by running for something a little lower down the political rung. We need to encourage the Verkamps and the Latases of the world to help the progressive movement by running for the leg or state offices that they can win. Jeff Latas would be a great legislator and lives in a district he might be able to take away a Republican seat. But he's running for Congress instead.

As progressives, we need people running at every level, and we should be honest with people about that and about their chances. If we're not, we're not helping the movement, we're hurting it.5/14/2006 06:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Leonard Clark|W|P|Hello , this is Leonard Clark. I am the other democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. I have been officially filed with the Federal Elections Commission for over a year as a candidate for this race even though I have not raised the $5,000 dollars that would require me to file.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe I am a personal victim of Mr. Kyl in that when I first filed to run for the U.S. Senate in Iraq (months before Pederson and a year before the other candidate) he had in my opinion a corrupt general or civilian leadership or both go after me like vicious dogs and I believe someone in the leadership of the U.S. Army carried out his or one of his friends desires to have my platoon go out on a section of road that was known to have already killed many other soldiers including some people I loved very much. I did not know if I would be "allowed" to return alive from Iraq but I thank GOD that some how I did.

I believe that I am not exaggerating when I tell you that I have collected a good many signatures and that if the people of Arizona continue to do so that they will hopefully put a candidate on the ballot who does not run from Neo-Con corrupt leaders like Senator Kyl. Again, I have seen personally, the results of gross icompetence and corruption of leaders like Senator Kyl in the worst form: the needless killing of my fellow soldiers in that we were sent out without proper equipment and that as a result of this icompetence and corruption personal soldiers I knew were killed.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope that you will know that I am a serious candidate supported by many serious grassroots people who feel they are being ignored. I and the rest of the people on our campaign: "Grassroots Democrats for Leonard Clark" only ask that the people of Arizona who do not know that I have returned alive from Iraq be told so and that I am keeping my pledge to them and my fellow soldiers (alive and dead) that I Leonard Clark a proud native of Arizona and child of the greatest mother and father who ever lived (Lillian and Roy Clark) am running as a Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Ladies and Gentlemen, one last thing I would like to state is that some (not all) of the leadership of the U.S. States Army has lied and tried to smear me and my family name. This is the same leadership that lied about the Pat Tillman case. I am proud to have served in the U.S. Army but I believe that it is being destroyed by a few corrupt leaders who are foregoing their ethical duties to their men and to the constitution whom are throwing low ranking soldiers such as myself in jail while they clear themselves of "inhumane treatment of detainees.

They claimed through the central command (CENTCOM of The U.S. Army) that due to a "Freedom of Information Request" by NPR that they released private details of my punishment that would normally be kept under their own privacy laws (and I was assured by U.S. Army Lawyers that would be the case. There's just one thing wrong: Rene Gutel of the local NPR station (KJZZ) who worked on the story told me that she never on the behalf of NPR put in a "Freedom of Information Request on me" . The Public Affairs Colonel who stated this through U.S. Army Centcom was a Colonel whom I believe was stationed in Iraq at the time. I personally believe Mrs. Gutel over these same leaders who been proven to be liars in the past.

Thank you to the producers of this blog, for having the journalistic integrity to report my side of the story. More information can be found on my campaign at : thedamnliberal.com and a google search with leonard clark soldier blog will also shed more information. Thank you.
Leonard Clark
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate in Arizona

Below, is a letter I just have just sent via the Internet to Senator Kyl and will be going on my website soon:

Mr. Kyl. It is you and your ilk in the Congress and in the Senate who continue to claim we are at war. But, sir, you disingenuously left out the fact that without a declared war against that first monster Al Qaida (the second one being your Fascist blood-money Industrial Complex hooligan friends that control the congress) that you have given your king and god George W. Bush a blank check to wage a war in which you and your Fascist ilk are not held accountable. Even Abraham Lincoln, had to answer to the Congress about little matters like generals who would not fight or why the confederates were winning.

Just as a child who goes to school must be held accountable by a report card you and your crooked politician friends must be held accountable.
After all, if you and your conservative ilk demand that our children be held accountable with grades on report cards then you too must set the example. But instead, all you and your congressional ilk can do is say that this undeclared war on the terrorist and our constitution will continue on for years and years and years. Hmm... sounds like your blood-money contracts will continue on and on for years while my fellow Americans and soldiers die (along with our constitution) in cold blood while you make your damn blood money.

Shame on you! Disgrace on you! You may be used to those other democratic leaders who run from you like victims running from vicious dogs but you sir, have met your match! You may tear me to shreds (like you tried to do in Iraq, when you found out I was running against you and had your corrupt general or generals helping you) but I will stand against you and your fasicst ilk for this is not just your country!

Of course, I do not imply violence like you and your thugs practice but in the end you and I will all meet our maker and our day of atonement!
Just remember: this damn liberal does not run from fascist Neo-cons like you!
P.S. If you think you are going to send your hooligans to harm my near family just know that the world is watching you and your fascist Neo-Con party's every move just like it did in Iraq when you came after me.
Leonard Clark
The Damn Liberal thedamnliberal.com
Inner City School Teacher
and Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate in Arizona
IMPEACH BUSH! NOT ONE MORE AMERICAN SOLDIER SHOULD DIE IN IRAQ! N.O.M.A.S. !4/28/2006 02:05:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Lofty Donkey, a site that I am now linking so the capo of that site can stop complaining, has posted a letter from soon to be ex-Rep. Laura Knaperek to ASU student body president Cori Widmer claiming that she is merely a humble member of the legislature and has no control whatsoever over university tuitions. She is correct, but only in the most narrow sense since she votes on university budgets. When there is a shortfall, universities turn to tuition hikes to make up for it. Apparently, Knaperek has trouble seeing the connection, since, as Signore Asino helpfully documents on his blog, she has routinely voted to under fund the universities, and even voted for budget cuts. (Lofty Donkey even quoted from the Daily Wildcat, which was probably painful for an ASU man) Knaperek claims in her letter:
Legislators are committed to fully funding every student and making sure every student graduates in a timely manner.
That's right. The legislative leadership has been well known for its high regard for students and our state universities. Knaperek and her colleagues wouldn't have to cut university budgets unless they were forced to. She says it's the fault of...okay...you know what is coming, so all together now... It is Janet Napolitano's fault. Knaperek's argument is that it is all the fault of the Board of Regents, and she helpfully points out that Governor Napolitano is an ex officio member. Knaperek's letter, available on Lofty Donkey, attempts to blame the Regents, but she also admits that the legislature provides one third of the funding for the universities. Apparently, she doesn't realize that if someone messes with a source that provides a third of your money, you have to make it up somewhere. Pretty slick of Knaperek to try to blame the Governor though. Does that mean that it is also ex officio regent Tom Horne's fault too? Of course it isn't. The letter smacks of an argument that Knaperek probably doesn't buy, and I doubt Widmer buys the argument either or it would not have magically appeared on the Lofty Donkey site. This letter and these claims have more to do with election year politics than anything else. Last year's buzzsaw that Knaperek ran into regarding the spousal rape bill was organized by ASU students, so now she realizes that she has to at least pretend that she represents student interests. NB - Lofty Donkey features a picture of newly enthroned Senator Ed Ableser addressing a student protest. Ableser did that thing that politicians always seem to do: they feel like they need to wear a t-shirt to show support at an event, so they put the t-shirt on over the shirt and tie they are wearing. This thing always bugs the heck out of me. Geez, Ed.|W|P|114626115948386692|W|P|Knaperek to Students: It's All the Governor's Fault|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/28/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Excellent! Since she (and "many" other legislators) are in support of limiting tuition increases to no more than the inflationary rate, and she acknowledges that 1/3 of univ funding comes from the general fund, I'm sure she'd be happy to have it publicized that she and the rest of the legislature support increasing the university budgets by whatever % (you do the math, i'm tired) it will take to cover the remainder of the universities' budget.4/28/2006 07:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tony GOPrano|W|P|Knaperek should have run for State Treasurer; she could have beaten Dean Martin. Looks like we are going to be stuck with the "Boy Senator" as the next State Tresurer. You think Dave Peterson is crooked....watch out for Martin!! Forgetaboutit!!!4/29/2006 02:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Man, I am sure my university's lobbyist is listening. I hope that he gives Knaperek a nice visit and drops off a bill that would restore the funding cut to the universities over the last five years AND factor in inflationary costs as well.

It is typical. The cut us and privately celebrate Goldwater Institute arguments to privatize universities...THEN they run like screaming children when they realize that tuition would have to be raised to pay for it.5/01/2006 06:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Lofty Donkey|W|P|Unfortunately, until the Arizona Students Association gets a real executive director that doesn't completely suck, no such bill will ever be delivered.5/02/2006 05:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|'zactly...who knew they were so flush? The way we had to find out was when it turned out the Executive Director had his hand in the till.

Bring Back Patrick McWhortor!4/28/2006 12:02:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Wonkette and FishbowlDC have stories on the Funniest Person in Washington chairty benefit. Unfortunately for most of Washington, this contest is more about who is intentionally funny. Anyhow, Rep. Linda Sánchez used the following chestnut, which she has apparently used before. Those of you that have seen her sister Loretta speak will know that she always falls back on the "No one thought I could beat Bob Dornan" thing, even though that was ten years ago. So, both of them have their rhetorical crutches. Given that this is a rhetorical crtuch, it comes in the form of a top 10 list, because top ten lists are always funny.
"Top Ten Reasons I Don't Date Republicans" by Linda Sanchez 10. The only time they believe in fiscal restraint is when the dinner bill comes. 9. His idea of getting to second base is fondling my stock portfolio. 8. He thinks that Emily's List is a call girl service. 7. His idea of oral stimulation is getting me to recite the Contract with America. 6. He thinks that white pantyhose and pearls are sexy--and you should see what he wants me to wear. 5. Because when Republicans say that they want to create opportunities for minorities, that means they want to date me and Loretta. 4. Despite all the hype, I still can't find his weapon of mass destruction. 3. His pending prison term for political corruption is just another excuse for him to be emotionally unavailable. 2. Republicans are only interested in screwing the poor. 1. Because they make love like they make war: they lie to get in and don't have a plan for what to do once they get there.
|W|P|114625179182292339|W|P|Why Linda Sanchez Doesn't Date Republicans|W|P|prezelski@aol.com5/03/2006 08:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I'm lucky. I married a Democrat.4/28/2006 06:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Over at Spidelblog, Lefty Pooh-bah Kevin Spidel reported last week that there is a former state legislator who is planning on running against Jim Pederson. I did what I am obligated to do as my admiring (or obsessive) public expects me to do: I asked around. I found out... ...almost nothing. Some speculation was afoot that it was Alfredo Gutierrez, who may be miffed about Pederson's relative moderation on the immigration issue. There may also be some lingering bitterness over the 2002 gubernatorial primary, when many of Gutierrez's supporters thought that party leaders like Pederson stacked the game against him. I don't buy that one myself, but it is something that I still hear from folks that backed him. I have been assured, however, that it will not be Gutierrez. I also don't know how strong a campaign he could run after seeing his second-rate voter registration effort at the recent immigration protests. It looks like all he managed to accomplish was givng Greg Patterson a reason to make fun of him. The other speculation I've heard was that he (Spidel used the pronoun "he") is a "party switcher" from "up North." Um, okay. Who the heck would that be, John Wettaw? Actually, I don't even know that Wettaw has switched parties, but he is the only one that I can think of that would fit the bill. I find this highly unlikely. This all goes with our style as Democratic party activists. The moment a candidate emerges, no matter how hard it was to find a candidate in the first place, the first thing we seem to do is complain about them. Even in those cases where there are several candidates running, we love to gripe that none of them are fit to lick the boots of Mo Udall, Sam Goddard, Henry F. Ashurst or whoever was in office decades ago. (These candidates running in CD 8? Not a single Harold "Por Que" Patten among them!) There could be twenty-three candidates running in the primary, and our activist impulse is to whine that number twenty-four hasn't thrown his or her hat in. I don't know how this person plans on running. They have about six weeks to collect 4,455 signatures, plus at least a thousand as a "cushion." I suppose once they get filed and they present themselves as a "progressive" alternative to Pederson, they imagine that the money will start coming in. The one person who I spoke with that knew the name (but the bastard wouldn't tell me who it was!) was unimpressed by the firepower that this particular candidate could bring to the race, so I wonder if this candidate could even pull it off. So why the heck wouldn't this person want to be talked about? They are about to have their name and face in every paper in this state, and they want a job that will get them on Meet the Press at least once in their term. This desire for anonymity is silly if they are serious about running. Heck, don't you want buzz about you? It would be hard to claim that progressive activists are clamoring for you to run as an alternative if you won't tell anyone who you are. There has been grousing from some activists that Pederson's campaign doesn't seem to be going anywhere. In the last few weeks, his ads have been ubiquitous and they seem to be working; a recent poll shows him gaining ground on Kyl rather quickly. This will probably take the wind out of the sails of those people who say that we need "someone else" to run against Kyl.|W|P|114623390217335003|W|P|A Democratic Primary?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/28/2006 09:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|I couldn't figure out the "obvious reason' for the anonymity, either. My guess was that this person had a conflict of interest and would have to resign from another position first, but it's not a terrible breach of ethics to announce that you're interested in running.

Whomever this person is, he doesn't stand a chance against Pederson. Good night, and good luck.4/28/2006 09:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Actually, if Gutierrez or someone else ran at Pederson from the left, it might end up helping him (since he is way out in front already). This is the same scenario that we had in the 2002 governor's race, and Gutierrez' attacks on the governor as 'too conservative,' his highlighting some of her more moderate positions to contrast with his own, and his initial reluctance to endorse her actually did a lot to help inure her against Salmon's attacks claiming that she was a liberal. She also got a lot of positive press just by virtue of winning the primary.

I just don't think Alfredo realizes this.

On balance, I'd still rather see Pederson be able to focus exclusively on Kyl and not have a primary opponent, but there are benefits to a Democrat in Arizona having a not-very-competitive primary opponent, especially one running from the left.4/28/2006 10:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I'm guessing people start looking for alternatives b/c Dems have the lamest campaign staffers who can't seem to stop letting their otherwise respectable candidates shoot themselves in the foot.

Exh A
http://www.azcentral.com/blogs/index.php?blog=85&title=did_pederson_misrepresent_kyl_s_exxon_st&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments4/28/2006 11:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Lefty|W|P|since my glory days of working on alfredo's race in '02, i've dreamed of his running again. i just don't see that he would.

yes, he is one of our most distinguished living statesmen, but i think he and his family know he has bigger things to do with bringing immigration to the forefront.

the party did abandon alfredo in the primary, but we all expected it to happen. it had and always will be the go janet show.

alfredo for president.4/28/2006 12:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Anyone know how Leonard Clark is doing on his quest to get qualified?4/28/2006 12:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Leonard Clark is still running?4/28/2006 07:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|has Clark gotten out of jail yet?5/06/2006 11:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Leonard Clark|W|P|Hello. This is Leonard Clark, The Damn Liberal. Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Yes, I am running and yes, I am real democrat, and not a moderate republican in sheep's clothing. My website is: thedamnliberal.com
The following is the campaign update from my observations at the Arizona State Democratic Party Meeting in down town Phoenix today:



To all of you hard working grassroots activist for the campaign: this is a campaign update. Thank you for your support, because without you none of this campaign would be possible. I want you to know that this is not my campaign, it is OUR CAMPAIGN.

The Arizona state Democratic party meeting was interesting. As I was walking down one of the hallways I ran into a certain Az. Dem.. Staff consutant member who sarcastically stated: Ah, Leonard Clark the Congressman. Well, I wanted to tell him that first I was running for the Senate and that there was going to be alot of crow being eaten very soon by the elites of the party all across our great nation but I just decided to go on about the business for which I attended the meeting: to meet other progressive democrats and influence the party to stand for the truth and not continue to straddle the fence while our nation goes down the tubes to this fascist president and his party.

I first attended the immigration caucus where the room was full and there were some good speakers. The speakers, I believe did a good job in explaining and breaking down not only the immigration crisis facing Arizona and the nation but giving possible solutions for it as well. I was very sympathetic in particular to one of the speakers contentions that NAFTA had instead of helping to ease the immigration problem had only worsened it and in Mexico had precipitated a more radical atmosphere.

I got to meet great humanitarians who belonged to organizations such as "Arizona Coalition for Migrant Rights" and " No More Deaths-No Mas Muertes www.nomoredeaths.org ." I just hope that at the end of the month when these organizations go and try to give humanitarian aid that I can go with them, this is something that I wanted to do even while I was in Iraq. Kind of a side note here but I find it rather interesting that Our American soldiers are dying over in the Desert of Iraq while other equally innocent human beings are dying in the desert of Arizona (at least 252 from last year alone according to one of the speakers at the meeting.)

After this caucus, I stepped into the Native American caucus and it was very interesting to hear their issues and concerns. I was encouraged by their unity and I hope and pray they grow very strong and influential in Amercan politics and even more so in the Democratic party. Just hearing them speak gave me inspiration for I could sense their spirtual strength which was founded on goodness and no ill will. The party needs to listen to them more.

Finally, the general meeting began for the democratic Precinct Committee members. The governor spoke and she talked about how the call bank started and her website. She joked that the volunteers at the call center could call all the Republicans who had been left behind by the Republican party, she then endorsed Harry Mitchell and openly said that she was tired of Jon Kyl so we needed to get Pederson elected. The governor, then went on to state that we had a strong democratic party in Arizona and that we owed Pederson a debt of gratitude for making a strong party. She stated that we did want to wake up on Nov. 8th and say: if we had only tried a little bit harder we could have had a democratic legislature and could have had a Senator Pederson.

Next, Fred Duvall, one of the elites of the Democratic party and of the Clinton administration got up to speak. Mr. Duvall, understandably spoke about finances since apparently he is a chairman for a finance committee of the Az. Dem.. Party. He jokingly said that he would take a quote from the war movie Apocalypse Now and state that he loved the smell of victory in the morning. He stated that we have the healthiest party financially in the U.S.. He stated that we have to raise at least 5 or 6 million more dollars to support the campaign in Arizona. He said that the potential we have for winning everything from the top of the ballot to the bottom warrants a strong revenue base. We want to incentivize you to find big donors to help us to raise big dollars.
Then another Az. State Party official got up and said that Fred Duval has brought many new faces, and new donors.
The chairman for the rules and bylaws committee got up and said that the requirement had been changed from before where when the platform for the Az. Dem.. Party needed to be changed it had to go through two committees before that change could be approved now could go straight through to the state committee but I do not know how the vote turned out on this in that I had to leave before that vote.

One of the speakers from the Immigrant Caucus Member of the Arizona State Legislature Ted Downing got up and said that mini-groups would be called mini-task forces. He strongly backed legislation in the legislature coming up that require actual manual hand recounts and he backed Mr. Shelby's voter initiave (an activist) to bring back voter integrity to the elections of Arizona.

Then another member of the party got up and reported that the Az. Dem. Party had sent a delegation to New Orleans for the DNC meeting there. It was stated from what I could tell that the DNC passed an Iraq resolution, the details of which I am not clear on. Apparently, huge changes for a primary date were being worked on for Arizona. Mr. Duval, at one point got up and spoke about how they were trying to get the caucus system for Arizona which would force Democratic Presidential candidates to come to Arizona. Another official also stated that if these changes to how the Arizona Democratic Party picks presidential candidates are carried through that the state party meeting as whole would probably have to occur 4 to 5 times for each different presidential candidate.

In one kind of comical moment, another democratic party official got up and announced that there were 187 members in attendance and that the Arizona Democratic Party was growing very strong, then she asked who had joined the party in the last two years to please raise their hands, I counted to my recollection not more than 7 to 8 hands out of the group. This, she said was not really representative of strong the party really was.

Then Peggy Hammond, 1st Vice Chair got up and stated that the Arizona Democratic Party was no longer the size of a small business in that it now has 30 staff which makes it a medium size business.

I had to leave a little early but some of the final remarks I heard were: that if we could hold this new early primary and have the caucus system alot of money could be raised. An example from Hillary Clinton at certain meeting for one of these type events it was stated attracted 6,000 people who had paid $200.00 a head.
Finally, Duval got up again and stated that yes we were already the best funded party in the U.S. but that we needed to increase that amount of funding by 3 to 5 times.


My opinions on what I saw: the immigrant caucus was a good meeting in that grass roots people got to ask questions. Also, a member from Congressional District# came up to me and told me that the party had screwed up because in their district their there were democrats than republicans yet they had not put up a candidate. Overall, there seems to be a smugness by the party elite and the corporate democrats that the many more people who were democrats and had dropped out of the party or had become independents were not that important because money from big corporate democrats and moderater republican democrats were what mattered in a state like Arizona.

Unfortunately, in the general meeting where our top leaders spoke I heard NOT A WIT ABOUT IRAQ or Immigration being used as tool of hate for a coming "Night of Glass" by the Republicans, although I did hear the governor state that if Goddard got elected again that he would go after gas gougers. I did hear an awful lot about money and sensed a smugness, and over confidence that the "Fat lady had already sung". Money, seemed to be the over riding issue. Now, I know there are alot of those out there saying: Duh! It's all about money, well I couldn't disagree more! It's not all about money, this is the problem we are trying to correct in our political system right now. A democratic system that is being rotted away by the addictive drug of money contributions is the system we now live in.

All of this talk about new large donors makes me wonder if the same corporate bunch that has ran the party for so long still doesn't get it. They need to realize that: "Ideas will trump money!" and that's what our grassroots campaign for the U.S. Senate is all about because we are not as progressive Democrats going to go away even after this campaign. I am a damn liberal and proud of it! We need to tell the party elites to stop worrying the Fascist Neo-Cons who work for the Military Industrial Complex are going and start using the L word again: Liberal. Neo-Con is the new dirty, perjorative word. It has the evil, smelly conotation of the Theocratic, Fascists that I encountered in Iraq. Old and young religous clerics exhorting their followers to hate in the name of their religion or their ethnic class.

I am proud to say that if my membership to the ACLU has expired since returning from Iraq that I will renew it so that I can say: I damn proud to be a card carrying member of the ACLU because they have more back bone in sticking up for our constitution then some of the elites in our party who I guess are now by their actions aiding and abetting the Fascist who are trampling all over our constitution.

Now, I know that alot of the people you might encounter might say: Don't you know? Leonard only has approx. only 39 days to gather his signatures but they need to know that if only six of us (hopefully alot more than that) gather 30 signatures a day (including myself) that will give us over 7 thousand signatures by Approx. June 12. I give you my pledge to fight on to the end because I know that if we all work together that we can attain signatures. Today, at the meeting, I met some very good contacts who will now go back to other parts of the state and help us get OUR GRASSROOTS ISSUES AND CAMPAIGN square on the ballot so that the press and the elites of the party can no longer ignore us.

I will keep you updated as best I can and I would like you to email me with any advice or information that can help us attain the victory that the elites do not want us to obtain. Let's all decide if we should have meetings in different parts of the valley and the state where our supporters (you) the real party can meet. You the grass activist are the real party and you alone will prove that: "ideas will (in this cynical age) trump money. " to the chagrin of corporate America.

Sincerely,
Leonard Clark
Your Damned Liberal, P.S. spread the word of our campaign call into every radio show and tell the press!
Inner City School Teacher,
Desert Storm/Iraq War III Vet
and
Candidate for the U.S Senate in Arizona
IMPEACH BUSH! NOT ONE MORE AMERICAN SOLDIER SHOULD DIE IN IRAQ! N.O.M.A.S.!





Sincerely,
Leonard Clark'
The Damn Liberal thedamnliberal.com,
Inner City School Teacher,
Desert Storm/Iraq War III Vet
and Democratic Candidate for
the U.S. Senate in Arizona4/26/2006 12:17:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Judge Raner Collins has rejected the latest legislative plan to help English language learners as insufficient and a violation of federal law. I guess it is back to the drawing board for the legislative leaders. Note for next time: if you are ordered to fund English language learning, it might be helpful to pass a bill that funds English language learning rather than tax breaks benefiting schools with no English language learners. It would be a nice start, but what would I know? No word yet on whether Republicans will follow the same pattern as they did with the recent immigration bill fiasco and run radio ads in Spanish blaming Phil Lopes. NB - Before I get an e-mail correcting this "error," (you know who you are), I am aware that the latest ELL bill did not include the tax credits. However, the Republican insistance on the credits throughout so much of this debate is emblematic of the lack of care they had for actually funding English language education in this state.|W|P|114607938889932065|W|P|Raner and Das Veto|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/26/2006 12:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger eckeric|W|P|"Collins also said the Republican-backed legislative plan would have violated federal law by forcing schools to divert federal funds they receive for poverty-related programs to cover the remaining costs of teaching English."

This always seemed to be the biggest problem with the plan.4/26/2006 02:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|The irony is, that if the fines accumulate long enough, then it will be funded.

They've dug their own hole on this one.4/26/2006 04:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|My suggestion, therefore, is to do nothing except wait for the legislature. Then either the legislature will pass a bill to adequately fund ELL programs, or the legislature will adequately fund ELL programs at the rate of one million dollars per day.4/27/2006 12:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Erik|W|P|Funding the ELL program at 1 Million a day sounds like the better plan now. Thats alot of money to fund ELL which is exactly what is needed.

Sometimes the GOP makes it too easy for us Democrats.4/27/2006 09:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I am worried that the Collins decisions are going to be used by Republicans to attack our nation's court system and its judges. I am waiting for the "activist", "judge as legislator" labels to fly.

Collins is just interpreting the law and using his power of contempt and others to force compliance when the law has been violated and avoided by those in power.

They are lucky that he does jail them for contempt.4/26/2006 07:03:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|
Nice to see the President is promoting from within the White House.
|W|P|114606056580402426|W|P|Not an Early 1990's Reggae Rapper|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/27/2006 02:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|He's been called a 'loyal critic'.

Sure - loyal to Bush and his administration to the detriment of the country.4/27/2006 04:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|You have gotta wonder what the first round of questions are going to look like when he takes the podium in the next couple of weeks.

David Gregory: "uh, Tony, on your show you called the president too liberal. Can you elaborate?"

It should be must see tv...4/28/2006 08:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger leathej1|W|P|A licky boom-bom down.4/26/2006 05:55:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In the last week or so, two leaders in the Border Guardians have been in the news showing just the sort of people they are. The Border Guardians have been "guarding the border" by burning Mexican flags in Tucson. I'm not sure exactly how this is supposed to work, but imagine the lives that could have been saved in the Second World War if more people stayed home and burned Japanese, German and Italian flags. Roy Warden, the man who recently pled not guilty to charges, including assault, stemming from one recent flag burning incident, has been sending a series of e-mails where he doctors quotes from Arizona Daily Star stories. For example, a quote from Raúl Grijalva regarding labor leader César Chávez started out as:
"Above all, he showed us there was a human worth in every individual," said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz.
This ended up in his e-mail as:
"Above all, he showed us there was a human worth in every individual," said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz. "It does not matter that Chavez was a communist. Rumors that communists have murdered millions of their own people are racist, capitalist lies."
Um, okay. Warden sends out such doctored quotes in different colors, but many e-mail programs don't display the colors, so who would know? The Star has asked Warden to stop sending the doctored quotes and representing them as the Star's. This led to a high minded response from Warden to Star Editor Teri Hayt, who Warden refered to as a "hairy breasted Amazon":
PERHAPS YOU SHOULD HAND OFF THIS ISSUE FOR THE MEN TO SETTLE.
The Star decided that Warden isn't worth suing over this matter. Oh, but don't think of Warden as a sexist. I mean, one of the other leaders in his group is a woman, Laine Lawless. Lawless, if you remember, is the one who always likes to claim that the Guardians' protests are against the Mexican government, but not against migrants or Hispanics in general. So, why, Ms. Lawless, are you posting to hate group bulletin boards suggesting that people steal money from and beat up illegal aliens? Why do you suggest that people do what they can to keep Spanish-speaking immigrant children (no matter what their legal status) out of school? What do you mean by talking about sabotaging "food and entertainment"? And, if this isn't about race, why are you posting on neo-Nazi bulletin boards? By the way, Chris Simcox and company haven't yet disavowed these chowderheads. The funny part is there actually are a significant number of Hispanics in this country that want to limit immigration, but its exactly these sort of extremist nut-jobs that keep them from being outspoken. The fact that so many Republican politicians and commentators are more than happy to line up with these racist nitwits only gives ammunition to people who think that the Republican party and the anti-immigrant movement are uniformly anti-Hispanic. To paraphrase an addage from a few decades ago: they aren't for the racists, but the racists are all for them.|W|P|114605951741841064|W|P|Those Border Guardians: Just Concerned Citizens, Really|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/27/2006 02:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|Ch. 15 in Phoenix is airing radio ads touting a report on The Minutemen and what they do with the donations that they have collected. I don't remember all of the spot, but they did use the phrase "...taking advantage of your patriotism..."

I generally don't watch the local TV news here (any industry that can foist JD Hayworth on us can't be any good, lol) and NEVER expect hard-hitting investigative journalism out of any major media outlet in Metro Phoenix, but if I'm home, I'll watch this.4/25/2006 06:43:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, a corresponent sent me the following post on Craigslist:
Petition Circulators needed NOW! Reply to: job-153426042@craigslist.org Date: 2006-04-21, 9:07PM you must be registered to vote to apply. We need petition circulators for a U.S. Congressional candidate for the 7th District. Pay is per signature and job needs to be completed by 5/15. we only need 500 signatures so it will be quick cash for a motivated person! collect signatures from registered voters in Avondale, Tucson, Maricopa, Yuma, Parker. call to inquire at 623-670-2778 Original URL: http://tucson.craigslist.org/npo/153426042.html
Let's see the signature requirements for CD 7: DEMOCRATIC: 641 REPUBLICAN: 338 LIBERTARIAN: 12 Um...hmm...so, he needs about 500...that must mean this is a Republican candidate, or a really ambitious Libertarian...probably not Joe Sweeney. Judging from Sweeney's website, he probably doesn't know how to post on Craigslist. Plus, he always seems to make the ballot on his own. (By the way, the last person to challenge his petitions was Jim Toeves way back in 1992. Suprise, his signatures were bad.) That leaves one person, former Avondale Mayor and Wildcat of Convienience Ron Drake. What Ron, you are only starting NOW? What has that legion of volunteers been doing for the last three months? Sheesh.|W|P|114597390121602576|W|P|If You Don't Want Me to Give You Grief, Don't Post About Your Campaign Problems|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/25/2006 02:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, it's the Republican way of doing things. Ignore the problem until it reaches crisis level, then scramble.4/25/2006 03:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Actually, a good example of doing it the Republican way happened today with the Munsil campaign. And he didn’t even have to cheat by setting up his campaign before he filed.

The Republican primary for Governor just ended and Janet is going to face a very serious, organized, and determined challenger.4/25/2006 04:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No, ignore a problem until it affects their grip on power then scramble is the Republican way of doing things.4/25/2006 04:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|elizabeth you just outlined Janet's approach to the border.4/25/2006 05:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Actually since Janet has been patiently telling the State Lege to send her decent bills she can sign into law, I do not think SHE is the problem with the illegal (and responsiblity of the FEDERAL government) immigration problem.

Maybe you could ask JD, John Kyl and McCain, Kolbe, Flake, et al about why it is only THIS year they bothered to do anything about the issue? After all, that is one of the reasons we send them to the US Congress is it not?4/25/2006 06:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|phx kid, the primary is hardly over. AgH2O may not have the organization to obtain the $ and signatures yet (Munsil had years of exp to get a leg up on that), but he's still far ahead of Lenny in the polls and his immigration positions resonate with a lot of GOP voters. Meanwhile, Lenny is vacillating on the issue. tsk tsk

elizabeth, pk can't ask John Kyl why he didn't do anything about the issue because he's dead. He could ask his son Jon Kyl, though.4/25/2006 07:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|hey, you never know Bored...he could be a medium!4/25/2006 07:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|hey, you never know Bored...he could be a medium!4/25/2006 07:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.4/25/2006 08:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|You might as well ask Kyl.

He was a do-nothing Senator for about ten years until he realized he might have a race this time, then he began sponsoring legislation.4/26/2006 12:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|AgH2O has been running since at least September of ’05 and still can’t get his $5 forms in. Any lead in the polls will not last long with no cash.

I don't care who wins but you cannot ignore that Len got his money very quickly.4/24/2006 06:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I don't know all of the rules involving congressional staff members, but I understand that they have to be very careful about getting involved in politics. For example, they cannot e-mail political (or even personal) messages on their congressional accounts. A member of congress cannot direct a member of his staff to do political work. Doing anything that smacks of electioneering or campaign work during office hours is a big no-no. The guy without the name badge is Todd Sommers, a legislative assistant to Rep. J. D. Hayworth. Now, check out who is hanging out at the back of the crowd at Harry Mitchell's announcement, looking very uncomfortable. Apparently, Sommers was also spotted one day (around 11:00, dead center during federally funded office hours) at Tempe City Hall doing research on Mitchell's tenure as Mayor of Tempe. You know, most campaigns can pay for people to do this sort of opposition research so they don't need to break the rules and send folks on federal salaries to do it. I thought Hayworth raised somewhere north of $800,000, you'd think he'd have enough to pay someone to do this. Maybe he's anticipating spending all that money on something else, like attorneys.|W|P|114588733201300602|W|P|I Know, I Know, He's Just a "Private Citizen" on His "Day Off."|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/24/2006 12:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|.... the blackberry is a dead giveaway.

haha4/24/2006 01:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger thedudester|W|P|Mister T is right, but I think he missed other tells, such as the obvious discomfort at being around a large group of intelligent people.4/24/2006 01:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I wonder if there is a way to audit Hayworth's office payroll account and verify that he was on the clock when this picture was taken?

As far as Congressional staffers not being political, I suspect that is only our staffers. Remember 2000, when the RNC rounded up a bunch of paid political staffers and sent them down to Florida so they could riot outside the door of the people doing the recounts?4/24/2006 01:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|The body language is a dead give-away, too. He obviously feels defensive because he knows he's doing something wrong and will be in the shit if caught at. And guess what?4/24/2006 09:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger azgopbob64|W|P|New to this blog. As a GOPer, its sad to see that Hayworth and his staff are corrupt. Hayworth and his ethical problems are bringing the Republican Party in Arizona down, and it getting difficult to defend this. Hopefully, we get smart and have at least an honest person run against Hayworth in the primary.4/24/2006 09:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Nice story. So I went to Harry’s web site. I am always a little leery when there is no link for issues. Doesn’t the candidate stand for anything?

So I did some checking. Harry doesn’t have all those pictures of little children surrounding him to hide the fact that he is pro-abortion (SB1325, 3-2-06), does he? I hope not because I am pretty sure that will come out during the campaign.

I know, I don’t understand, those are all wanted children and Harry only supports mutilating unwanted children. Not quite, see SB1052, 3-3-05. That bill was so reasonable that even Janet signed it, 4-25-05.

I know, I am a one-issue nut job. It’s just with Len for Governor and Colette for Senate on the ballot, Harry may find a lot of pro-life voters in CD 5 showing up at the polls on November 7th.4/24/2006 10:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Phx Kid, that was vetoed on the 17th.

Anyway, unless you plan on getting up with us women forced to have babies we do not want for the 3 AM feeding, could you kindly stay out of our uteruses? Thank you.

As for this guy, I knew the one you told me was part of the opposition was not Mister T! That guy later filled out a volunteer form. :p4/24/2006 10:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Elizabeth, there is a neat little button on the legislative web site titled change session. You should try it sometime. Then you could find out about bills like BS 1052 (unborn children, protection) that were introduced during the 47th Legislature – First Regular Session with a first read in the Senate on January 12th, 2005 and later signed by the Governor on April 25th, 2005.

I can understand that not everyone is ready to be a mother. There is this cool thing called adoption that does not require killing your baby but rather giving her to a loving couple that would like to raise her. Yes, that does entail continuing the pregnancy. Such a small price for not having your own child killed.

btw, I have no interest in being inside your uterus. I would speculate that most unborn babies have that same feeling if they are the one being aborted.4/24/2006 11:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|Maybe next time, he'll remember the fake '70s porn star moustache. LOL

Seriously, while even I consider this particular incident to be 'slap-on-the-wrist' stuff (and I'm pretty partisan), if the Hayworth campaign is already playing fast and loose with basic rules, what's the rest of the campaign season going to be like?4/24/2006 11:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:

There is no problem with believing that abortion is bad. And Democrats have been quietly implementing a plan to reduce the need for it for over a decade, involving sex ed, birth control and family planning. And it's worked-- even Right to Life concedes that the number of abortions is down by anywhere from a quarter to a third (statistics are hard to come by) since it reached a peak in the early 1990's. The problem is that some people believe that the only way to oppose something you don't like is to make it illegal.

I don't agree with that point of view. It's narrowly focused and requires criminalizing something that only a minority even believe should be a crime at all.

Now, anti-abortionists will cite competing polls saying that people believe abortion is immoral, or bad or whatever.

However, that does not equate with criminal.

For example, I believe that smoking tobacco is bad. It kills tens of thousands of people every year (including hundreds, maybe even thousands of non-smokers) and costs this country billions in hospital bills, lost productivity and money that is spent on useless tobacco products that are simply burned up and thrown away. It also causes millions of dollars every year in damages from fires that wouldn't start if nobody smoked. And for this reason, I fully support spending money on efforts to prevent kids and others from starting, enforcing laws against giving cigarettes to minors, and helping people quit.

But I don't support banning nicotine, and I don't support banning abortion for the same reason. It's not the purpose of Government to interfere in people's personal decisions, and there are a lot of ways to oppose something without making it a crime.

As far as adoption, if pro-life people spent a tenth of the effort on promoting adoption and finding good homes for the many older kids who are stuck in the foster system right now, as they do on trying to criminalize abortion, then I suspect that on top of all the other problems that were solved, we would see quite a few less abortions.4/25/2006 12:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I am sorry, I misread the number and looked up the wrong bill. The bill also makes an exception for someone performing an abortion. This bill is designed and intended to charge someone who has harmed an in utero fetus with an additional crime. This generally happens when a woman has an abusive relationship. And these are generally called Laci Laws since they are the result of the dual murder conviction of Scott Peterson who murdered his wife and unborn child.

However, until *you* have had to carry a fetus that you do NOT want to carry, you cannot tell me or any other woman "oh just put it up for adoption." If a woman does not want her pregnancy, then she is going to do anything to get rid of it up to and including killing herself.

And you do want to be in my uterus because you want to tell me what I can and cannot have in it.4/25/2006 08:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger leathej1|W|P|Any time you endeavor to reduce an argument to only two choices, you are generally on the wrong track.4/25/2006 09:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|eli mentioned “a plan to reduce” “And it’s worked” Is that why, according to Arizona Department of Health Services, the number of abortions in Arizona went from 8,226 in 2001 to 12,301 in 2004? Some reduction.

The act of smoking tobacco in and of itself does not result in terminating another human life. If someone wants to sit in their house alone and smoke 3 packs a day that does not impact another persons health or life. It does cost money but the simple solution is to make smokers pay for their own heath care and not force the cost onto society.

“many older kids stuck in the foster system” so are they better off if we just kill them in the womb and get it over with? As bad as it can be they have a better chance at survival in the foster system then they do fighting against the abortionist’s forceps.

Elizabeth - so why did Harry vote against SB 1052? It even had an exception for abortions. What could he have objected to? Is it important to him that even wanted unborn babies have no legal standing?

If you don’t want to carry the baby don’t get pregnant. Democrats are always talking about how great contraception is, well then use it. The one exception would be rape. If you need to kill someone because of a rape, make it the rapist. Certainly he is more guilty than the unborn child.

You can have anything you want in you uterus. I just think that Roe v. Wade and many Democrats take a very extreme position on abortion. i.e. opposition to parental (notarized) consent and fetal protection laws like SB 1052. If your position on the issue is so great why don’t Harry and Janet and Jim spell it out on their web sites? What are they afraid of? They should be proud of the history of abortions in America since 1973 and the role they have played in that history.4/25/2006 01:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|To get sense of the complete, over the top, nuttiness of the prolife movement, I highly recommend the latest Podcast of the program NOW by PBS. It is listed under politics podcasts on I-Tunes and is dated April 14th. It talks about what is happening in South Dakota and the extent to which the leader there has not only gotten the pro-life legislation passed, but how she also has done everything in her power to destroy prevention efforts other than...get this...abstinence programs and a freakish cottillion where girls make a special virginity promise to their fathers. It also lists how so many who are pro-choice have been railroaded through government efforts into fear of speaking out or signing petitions. Last, it details the complete disregard for science by a task-force of that was stacked with pro-lifers. This task force and its lies led to the legislation under debate now.

Sorry PhxKid...but while wonderful people can disagree, I find much of the movement pretty ridiculous and frightening.4/25/2006 02:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:

here are national numbers from Right to Life, certainly not skewed in favor of Democrats.

It shows quite conclusively a decline in abortion since 1990.

If that trend has leveled off or reversed, then I would stop and ask what has changed since the years when we were having so much success? Answer: the main change to the sex ed curriculum has been the introduction of 'abstinence only' education. Look at the math of it. If you have 90% of students in a school abstinent (which would be an amazing 'success'), but you don't teach the rest of them about safe sex, then 10% of the students are engaging in risky sex and could result in unwanted pregnancies. On the other hand if you taught traditional sex ed (which still teaches that abstinence is the only failsafe way) and you have 50% of the students sexually active but using condoms which are 98% effective, then only (.50)(.02) = 1% are exposed to the same risks as 10% are exposed to under the 'abstinence only' scenario. Hence about ten times as many unwanted pregnancies.

Now, true the numbers here are only an example, and may or may not be in the neighborhood of the actual numbers, but the point is made: abortions declined during the hey day of traditional sex ed/condom distribution etc. but if that trend is now reversing itself then I would suggest that it is almost certainly due to 'abstinence only' education programs since that is really the only thing that has changed much in terms of the sex education over the past several years.4/25/2006 03:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|kralmajales You may view the movement as “nuttiness” but the interesting thing is that science is actually on our side. The pro-life pregnancy centers are anxious to get a hold of sonogram machines so they can show pregnant mothers the living child inside of them. After seeing the image many moms decide to keep their babies.

Science and medical technology have greatly supported the view that the unborn child is a separate life.

eli are you actually telling me that we are making progress because only 1.29 human babies were torn apart limb from limb in the womb in 2004? I went to high school in the late 70’s and even without sex ed and growing up with conservative parents, everyone knew how a condom worked and what it was for. They are actually not very complicated.

Are you really saying that kids are engaging in “risky sex” just because they do not know any better and if someone just gave them more information they would start behaving wisely? If that were the case then there would be no underage alcohol or drug use.

People sometimes make mistakes and killing the unborn does not solve the mistake. It makes the consequence go away but it does not fix the underlying issue. Many women go on to have multiple abortions after their first one.

According to the Arizona Department of Heath statistic most abortions are performed on women in the 20-29 year old range. Sounds like you need to reach them somewhere else besides school since most of them are not in school (except maybe college.) Even then from what it says on their web site the U of A health services offers contraception services. Contraception has been widely available for at least a few decades now. This is not a failure of teaching about contraception in the schools. It is a breakdown of a moral structure that reserved the sex act for situations when the natural result of that act, a living child, would be valued. In valuing our own personal desires above human life we have arrived at the point where we dispense with more than 1 million lives a year. Many Democrats talk about being enlightened or progressive. Destroying a million lives a year does not sound like much of either.4/25/2006 04:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I have no idea why Harry voted against it. Probably because he was concerned it was the first step in banning a woman's right to choose her family size. I know that is the first thing I thought about when I read it. Once you start saying that a fetus is a person under the law, then you can start forcing women to become nothing more then vessals for the fetus they carry. And then you get into forcing women into prisons to make sure they do not self abort. Or do you not care if they do that and risk putting their lives in danger?
If you want to know so much about Harry's reasons, go to a campaign event and ask him, send him an email, or contact the campaign staff regarding it. And do the same for the other people you mentioned. I can give you MY opinion regarding abortion and that is all.

As for "if you want to not have kids, do not get pregnant," yeah that is why I support comprehensive sex ed, fuller access to contraception (including making ALL health insurance providers pay for the Pill) and making Plan B OTC.
However NOTHING in life is perfect and if they have a contraception that fails, then I want any woman who has no interest in becoming a mother at this or any time during her reproductive years to have access to an abortion if that is what she wants. Not my decision and I stand behind hers since again *I* do not have to have the baby, I do not have to deal with the consequences while *she* does.

Also you might want to read up on why a woman decides on an abortion rather then just saying why YOU think we women should not get them.

You will be surprised.4/25/2006 05:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Oh and here, a few reasons a woman might also chose an abortion.4/25/2006 06:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Harry doesn’t have all those pictures of little children surrounding him to hide the fact that he is pro-abortion

I know. Only Republicans care about little children. That's why they vote against paying to send drugs to Africa to help little children live.4/25/2006 07:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|And vote to slash Head Start funds, and WIC, and destroyed welfare, cut subsidies for section eight...

yes Republicans LOVE the little children.4/25/2006 07:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Don't forget the vote to cut child-support enforcement, which was just $59 million worth of wasteful discretionary spending. Praise the Lord!4/25/2006 08:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Oh, and let's not forget how Arizona is still bringing up the rear in paying teachers.

Yeah, they love kids all right.4/27/2006 12:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Erik|W|P|Wow! Phx-Kid is a good spindoctor for the GOP. This post was about JD Hayworth and corruption and it ended up into a heated debate on abortion. Standard GOP method and we democrats fell for it.

Back to the subject please.4/27/2006 02:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|He always does that Erik. I just was getting tired of someone demanding to tell me what to have in my uterus.5/01/2006 11:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Frank Rizzo|W|P|Looks like a photoshop job to me. You hippies are way to up tight!4/23/2006 08:24:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I have only one question about last week's hearings on Dolores Huerta's speech: what did this accomplish? I spoke to Rep. Jonathan Paton last week, and he went over many of the points he later made on Arizona Illustrated. Paton believes that speeches such as Huerta's should be followed up by someone of an opposing viewpoint. He also thinks that the transcripts of such speeches should be available to the public. Okay, sounds reasonable. The trouble that I had with this was that I didn't think that this was the business of a full blown legislative committee hearing, especially since many of his questions to TUSD were already answered, and he was already able to get a copy of the speech online. If you are interested in reasonable discussion of issues, the last thing you want to do is bring them up in front of a legislative committee. After reading press reports on the questioning of TUSD officials, it is difficult to see what Republican committee members think could have been done about the statement. Did they think that a district official should have been in the back of the room with a mute button? Oh wait, I forget, this is the Arizona Legislature. They weren't interested in doing anything, they wanted to score ideological points. For example: the Republicans are particularly burned up about Huerta's statement that "Republicans hate latinos." Okay, I'll stipulate that that was not the most tolerant statement. So, who did they invite to the committee hearing? David Horowitz. David Horowitz wrote a book called Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes. So, "Republicans hate latinos" is intollerant, but saying that progressives hate whites is perfectly reasonable. Horowitz also has a website which claims that figures like Sen. Tom Harkin, Ruby Dee and Roger Ebert are pawns in a terrorist conspiracy. Yes, this is exactly the sort of person you should invite to speak on behalf of calm, reasonable, tolerant political speech in schools. You don't invite Horowitz to learn any actual information or to hear reason, you invite him so he can trash talk everyone to his left. Which, by the way, includes a lot of people. Wait, I thought this was about a speech and how much money was being spent on busses. What the heck would Horowitz know about that? Another amusing moment came when Rep. Rick Murphy pretended not to know what MEChA was. Funny thing, descriptions of MEChA always seem to show up in Republican talking points whenever they are running against a latino Democrat. Rep. John Allen claimed that Tucson High School was a "sweat shop for liberalism." Such a statement seems to point out that he was more offended by the particular brand of politics being expressed, rather than the inflamatory nature of the remarks. He also admitted in one article that the legislature couldn't do much about it. Great, than why have a hearing? So, any legislation coming out of this? I didn't think so. Good waste of time, fellas. NB - I also ran across this tax-payer financed press release from Tom Horne's office. Horne is saying that his deputy, who is hispanic (some of Tom's best friends are, you know), should be sent out to schools to tell students why she is proud to be Republican. Um, so to counter Dolores Huerta's alleged misuse of a single public school assembly to make a partisan statement, Tom Horne sends an official press release on state letterhead to make a partisan Republican statement, and says that his deputy should be allowed to tour all the schools to make partisan statements. Also, Horne talks about how wonderful and tolerant he is toward hispanics. At least that is true when he isn't running against them.|W|P|114580641299331885|W|P|Full of Sound and Fury, Yadda Yadda Yadda|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/23/2006 10:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This topic distresses me quite a bit. I have been reading a lot about polls on immigration and about the political fallout that is occuring. It appears that the Republican party is seeing this as an opportunity to counter-mobilize its base for the elections in 2006. There has already been a lot of talk about the carrying of the Mexican flag, that the participants in marches are either young or illegal (and cannot vote), and that it shows how "they" are stealing our culture (ack!).

One interesting point is that this issue (according to Gallop) does mobilize the hard right and in a big way. Some analysts look for candidates to win Republican primaries by fighting illegals...and in all parts of our nation (Iowa, Georgia, etc. etc.).

So what effect might this counter-mobilization have on the vote in the fall?

It might push the Republican too far to the right and hurt them and their loyal business base who uses immigrant labor (e.g., Randy Graf). It might also mobilize Latinos to vote in higher numbersas they are villified (like in California). But it could "scare" middle America into turning out for Republican candidates too.

Thoughts?4/23/2006 04:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|More of DHo's antics can be found here.

Horowitz shamelessly claims before a Penn State audience that the President of Penn State said that "the College Republicans are offensive" when, in fact, what he had said was that plans the College Republicans had made to hold a "CATCH AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DAY" were offensive. Unbelievable!4/23/2006 05:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The Republicans say they do not hate Latinos then pull this stunt with John Allen being um...less then diplomatic in his wording.

So exactly how is she wrong?4/25/2006 12:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|I could understand Paton being upset. I think he was the one who gave the example that Democrats wouldn't like it is someone spoke before a high school class and said "Democrats hate Christians". I would be also be angry. These kinds of statements are totally inappropriate/unfair.4/22/2006 08:34:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Arizona Daily Star has moved its notebook column to Saturday now. I don't know much about the two reporters writing it, but it might be nice for them to pay a bit more attention. For example, in this morning's column, they complained that Jim Pederson is "never in Tucson." Pederson has been here numerous times, it just so happens that their paper rarely sees fit to send reporters when he comes. That ain't Jim's fault, blame your assignment editor, who apparently thinks that printing Jon Kyl's press releases is the same as covering a senate race. Note to y'all: Pederson was just on Arizona Illustrated this week, and will be at the Pima County Fair next week. Interestingly, the "Notebook" column included an item on the State of the County Address. This event was attended by... Wait for it... Drum roll... Jim Pederson. I guess that little fact would have gotten in the way of the "Pederson is never here" meme. Heaven forbid. UPDATE: Ah! I find out more: Pederson also had a press conference yesterday. The two reporters that wrote the "Notebook" column did not attend. By the way, I saw Pederson here in the Old Pueblo this morning. Naw, couldn't have been him, he's never here. He's like Captain Tuttle.|W|P|114572057882400579|W|P|Why Don't They Ever Ask Where Kyl Is?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/22/2006 08:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jeneiene Schaffer|W|P|This can easily turn into an Elvis sighting drama. Jim needs a controversy...hmm, say a mistress, an underground meth lab, supporting anti-egg donor legislation. You know, that kind of thing. Tucson 'news' revolves around car crashes and drug busts, so the compitition is fierce.4/22/2006 09:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|can it not be something good? like you know Jim saves fifty frozen embryos from a burning building while also solving: In what class of 4-dimensional spacetimes does there exist a real, non-constant scalar field φ with the following properties:

It obeys the wave equation: ◻φ=0
Its gradient is everywhere null: ∇φ.∇φ=0


which I admit I stole from David Deutsch's website but I know he would love the answer to.4/22/2006 11:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Geez...I hate calculating gradients...what a pain in the behind.4/23/2006 07:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|tedski:

I'm with you there.

Some years ago, I was in a Ph.D. math program and had a teaching assistantship to help pay my way through. I loved teaching algebra to freshmen, but didn't like a lot of the hardcore math at all. Then I realized that if I did a bunch of math/physics research, published several papers, presented them, and then wrote a thesis on it and got my Ph.D., my reward would be that I could get hired to 'teach' at a university, where I would mainly be expected to-- do research, publish, and present papers. Teaching would be secondary.

So realizing this, I dropped out of the Ph.D. program, took a job teaching freshmen algebra at a community college, and have never been happier than I am now, still doing it more than twenty years after I first stepped into a classroom. And calculating gradients? Only when I'm teaching Calc III.4/23/2006 07:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I hope, by the way, that you emailed your post to the editor of the paper down there, so they can realize how truly stupid they look.

At least our paper up here only has one section, and comes out twice a week, so there is only so much they can get wrong.4/20/2006 09:05:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|My brother pointed this one out to me last night. It seems that George Bush has learned some lessons from proto-Republican Abraham Lincoln. When the war isn't going well, make sure to fire McClellan. Is this a subtle acknowledgement that there is a civil war going on?|W|P|114554951748664798|W|P|He's Already Sort of Suspended Habeas Corpus, Next Up: He'll Finally Emancipate the Slaves|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/21/2006 12:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger KnightErrant|W|P|Peggy Noonan writing about Bush: "Just because they call you a jackass doesn't mean you're Lincoln."4/19/2006 07:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, what is this I hear that the Tucson City Council is going to move to an "all-male ballot"? Doesn't that violate the 19th Ammendment?|W|P|114545760664829445|W|P|Channeling Emily Litella|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/19/2006 02:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|wow...just wow thats funny4/21/2006 05:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Lofty Donkey|W|P|Real cute Tedski. Now when are you going to list loftydonkey.com as a blog of note, huh?4/19/2006 06:38:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|There is a big campaign walk going out of Jim Pederson's office this weekend. I wonder if Jon Kyl's campaign is preparing a press release saying that this is a sign of "depseration." If Kyl is going to call Pederson "desperate" for doing things like running ads or, I dunno, phone banking, doing interviews or doing anything else that we self-appointed political experts usually call "campaigning," he might as well go all the way and take a page from Czech Prime Minister Jiří Paroubek, who is involved in a tough re-election fight. Paroubek, well...I'll let you read it yourself. By the way, does he look a bit like Mayor Quimby?|W|P|114545470130363083|W|P|Suh, I Demand Satisfaction|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/19/2006 07:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|actually he looks a teeny bit like you Ted.4/20/2006 09:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, it would certainly simplify elections here. And it was good enough for Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.

The bad news is that if we chose our leaders that way, Dick Cheney would have to be considered the favorite, based on his recent experience.4/20/2006 04:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger KR|W|P|hahahhahahahaha

He definately does. Good call!4/18/2006 07:23:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I almost missed the best part of John Munger's appearance on Arizona Illustrated. At one point, Munger was talking about what a brilliant job we are doing in Iraq, and instead of saying "Iraq," he said "Viet-Nam." And I'm not even making that up.|W|P|114541360571697999|W|P|Actually, "Iraq" isn't Arabic for Anything, It's Aramaic|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/18/2006 06:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|John MungerOn last night's Arizona Illustrated, Republican Pooh-Bah John Munger spoke about the candidacy of Jim Pederson. When Pima County Democratic Party Chairman Donna Branch-Gilby brought up that Pederson is rich, but a self-made rich man, Munger said "I have a problem with that..." Munger proceded to complain about wealthy people running for the United States Senate. Wow. You would almost think that Munger would be for public financing to prevent such a thing from happening, but no, he later trashed the state's Clean Elections system as a failure, even though many of his Republican friends don't seem to have a problem running under it. Sen. Guy SmileyMunger also complained that Pederson's announced donation of $2,000,000 to his own campaign is forcing Jon Kyl to spend all of this extra money. Once again, Republicans are whining that a Democrat is campaigning. ¡Pobrecitos! When Branch-Gilby said that this is still dwarfed by Kyl's $7,300,000 warchest, Munger had an interesting riposte. Kyl's money can only come in $4,000 donations, you know, from regular working folks. He said this as if there are thousands sweat drenched working mothers writing $3000 and $4000 checks to Kyl in their breaks between their waitressing and telemarketing jobs. The defense that Kyl is being "forced" to raise this money is even more silly, since he raised nearly $3,000,000 in the 2000 cycle when he had no major party opponent. Did his supporters complain then that the Green Party candidate "forced" him to raise and spend all that money? Munger's defense of Kyl seemed to imply that he is some normal guy that happens to be in the senate. So much better a better guy than some plutocrat like Pederson, I guess. Well, what was Kyl before a Senator? He was a congressman. Before he was a congressman? A lobbyist. Oh yeah, and his father was a congressman too. Yes, Jon Kyl, much more of a regular guy than Jim Pederson. PS - Munger is one of many state Republicans touting the fact that Time magazine picked John McCain and Jon Kyl as two of our country's ten best senators. So, I suppose that they will be slathering praise on Edward Kennedy, who made the list as well. PPS - I wanted to point out that Munger himself practices real estate law, among other things, which means he has done pretty well for himself in the same industry that Pederson is in. A quick perusal of his firm's website shows that they also handle "immigration law:"
We can help your company compete in the global marketplace by assisting you in hiring foreign individuals with needed skills including professionals, technicians, management, executive personnel, or other accomplished individuals. We can also help the corporate client establish or expand operations in the United States by assisting in the transfer of managers, executives or specialists from affiliated entities abroad to the United States. The Firm can help your company develop compliance plans and conduct private audits to prevent fines for failure to maintain certain immigration and labor-related paperwork. Munger Chadwick can help your company bring world class athletes, entertainers and entertainment groups, or cultural exchange groups to the U.S. for international festivals, meets, performances, etc.
Wow, Munger Chadwick will help you "prevent fines" for breaking labor and immigration laws. Nice. Also, they will help you find those foreign workers that you can pay 25% less than an American worker. Interestingly, immigration, possibly the biggest issue going for his party right now, was undiscussed in the interview.|W|P|114537012348156435|W|P|John Munger: Working Class Hero|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/18/2006 08:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|You're my hero.4/18/2006 09:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Art Jacobson|W|P|Ted...
A wonderful post.Tap... tap... tap, nails in the Munger coffin.
Art4/18/2006 11:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|A Republican teeing off on 'rich people.'

How quaint.

Oh, and he also conveniently forgot to mention that Kyl raised about $1.4 million in one night, when the President (or was it the Veep-- they've both been campaining for Kyl) came by. Pederson has to raise what he can without the benefit of an incumbent administration that can raise large sums of money in a night, while we pay the tab for their travel.4/18/2006 11:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Phil A. Buster|W|P|I crack up every time I see that Sesame street character (or is it a Muppet?)

Ted, is this because you think the Muppet looks like Kyl? I'm starting to see the resemblence...4/18/2006 04:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Phil,

It is Guy Smiley, intrepid Muppett game show host (who does not deserve to be defamed by the constant comparison to Jon Kyl).

That's ok, though Tedski. Go ahead and ruin my happy childhood memories.

Go on.4/18/2006 06:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|What would it take for you to say nice things about Ted Bored?

And Ted, you know as well as I do that Dems are only supposed to stand there and be defeated. At least that is what the GOP believes.4/18/2006 07:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I like the muppet for Kyl.

It really fits him well, especially since for ten years Kyl pretty much did nothing much in the Senate. It was only last year when he realized he was due for re-election that he even bothered to do anything noteworthy.4/19/2006 01:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|"Elizabeth Rogers said...
What would it take for you to say nice things about Ted Bored?"

Lobotomy. ba da bum
[Geez. You walked right into that one.]

Seriously, though. I don't need to say nice things to Ted. Three of the four posts preceding mine did that just fine. And does he really need you to stick up for him (esp. on joking posts)? I think he's man enough to do it himself.

While we're asking questions, dear, what would it take for you to stop flirting with Ted over the Internet? "heehee"4/19/2006 01:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Elizabeth-

I wouldn't expect Bored to say nice things about me, I did, after all ruin his childhood. The man is traumatized.4/16/2006 06:41:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Years ago, I read a book called The Lincoln-Douglas Debates: The First Complete and Unexpurgated Text, edited by a fellow named Harold Holzer. Holzer used Democratic transcripts of Abraham Lincoln's speeches, and Republican transcripts of Stephen Douglas's speeches, believing that a candidate's opponents would give a "warts and all" version of the speeches. One thing that struck me was the way in which Lincoln would change his tune regarding the question of slavery depending on what town he was in. In Illinois's northern towns, his rhetoric would be more abolitionist, but in "Little Egypt," he sounded almost like a white supremacist . He could get away with that in those days with communications the way they were back then. We snide liberals love to point out that today's Republican party embraces Lincoln, but doesn't seem to have learned much from him. It seems that they have learned much from his debating strategy, however. The Republican pary is running ads claiming that Democratic congressmen attempted to brand illegal immigrants felons. You are asking two questions. One is: how the heck can they claim that? I won't try to address the rather tortured logic because I think others have done that better than me. Your second question is: how the heck can they get away with that when Republicans like Randy Graf, Don Goldwater and Rep. J. D. Hayworth are trashing Democrats for not voting for strong immigration measures? Well, it's simple: they are running the ads on Spanish language radio. I don't imagine that Graf's base is listening to Radio Tejano. I've got a suggestion for the Republicans: if this is your message, you should be proud to run these ads in English. Heck, why stop there? Run them on country stations...'specially in Sierra Vista. The Democratic party is taking action on this and raising ads to counter the message. If you want to help, check out Wactivist for more information.|W|P|114524088749047921|W|P|Republicans Are For Immigration Restrictions Depending on What Radio Station You Like|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/17/2006 10:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|This is another one of the !!@$#% outrages that Al was referring to.

Very Orwellian. Often the Republican-speak sounds Orwellian to me.4/17/2006 11:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|The best counter would be to just publish the verbatim translation of that ad and of a Hayworth speech in the paper right next to each other.

Light is the best antidote for lack of illumination.4/18/2006 11:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This is the typical dirty tricks the Republican party uses to depress turnout.

Has anyone been following the New Hampshire "phone jamming" scandal in their last Senate race? Ties have been now linked to the RNC and the White House.

I keep thinking that one of these scandals (wiretapping, NH phone-jamming, Abramoff, etc.) is going to get people to say "enough" or even lead to some justice, but instead, it appears that there are so many scandals that there is just a bunch of "white noise" for voters.

Last, all of this shows why we need to take back the House and Senate (AZ and Federal). Without power on the committees, there is no real means to investigate any of this. The Republicans just don't seem to be breaking away to be principled.4/14/2006 06:37:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Local music demigod Al Perry, upon hearing that the legislature is not only trying to get rid of clean elections, but trying to roll back campaign finance laws to pre-1988 standards:
You know, it's a new f***ing outrage every day. After a year, that's 365 f***ing outrages.
By the way, Al was totally unengaged with politics until Bush came along.|W|P|114506525900107146|W|P|Quote of the Week, No, Decade|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/14/2006 09:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|" Al was totally unengaged with politics until Bush came along."

That seems to be true of a lot of people.

I suppose that means that, for all his myriad faults, even W can accomplish some good. Even if it is by accident.4/14/2006 10:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I was totally unengaged until Howard Dean.4/15/2006 08:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Emmiyeh|W|P|I was totally unengaged until the day after Election Day 2004. But, better late than never.4/16/2006 06:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger leathej1|W|P|Campaign trail 2000, when the then future president opened his mouth for the first time.4/16/2006 03:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Since we are telling stories...(grin)...I have been engaged in politics since I walked to grade school one chilly morning in West Virginia only to find that the school was cancelled for election day. My parents didn't follow politics and thought it was a school day. I saw interesting people, bright signs, and people talking about how to improve the state, the schools, and our county. I was quickly put to work holding signs and talking to candidate backers...it was amazing seeing democracy that way.

Because I was a rebel and the state was totally dominated by some rather corrupt Democrats, I became a Republican (smile)...then in college I realized I liked freedom and became a liberatarian...then when Bush came along, I saw religious freedom being torn apart, that tax cuts simply meant for people who made money already, and that they really didn't want business out of govt. at all...they wanted government to help business. I also began to see that the free market was bullshit. I saw that the small fraction of the money spent on business, wars, and defense, could go so much farther if it was used to help even a few people get education and access to society. Finally, Bush sent my brother to war and my father had to seek work in Iraq because there were no jobs in industrial construction here.

While I am leaning more and more to becoming a Democrat, I am now registered as an independent. Its actually kind of liberating. We don't get invited to parties and socials like party members do, but there is a lot of freedom in being one too. You can believe what you want, don't have to worry about the party line, or backing party politicians who are corrupt in order to hold onto power, and both parties want your vote badly...we get a LOT of mail.

Best,

Roger4/14/2006 06:17:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of the things I always found funny on the show Cops is that there would be some guy who would act like the biggest badass on the block, but the moment the police got him and slapped on the cuffs, he would wail and scream that they were too tight. It reminds me of the way some conservatives act the moment they find out that somewhere there is liberal thought expressed somewhere in the universe. They pour over every incident, every statement made by obscure professors at obscure community colleges, every action by an official to find some evidence that the liberal man is keeping them, the good Americans, down. The charges may be a bit more believable if they weren't presented by majority party elected officials on well funded news shows, or for that matter well-connected bloggers. I read on Greg Patterson's blog his comments on Monday's flag burning incident:
The Supreme Court has decided that you have a Constitutional right to burn an American flag, but don't try burning a Mexican one.
Yeah, the Border Guardians are being opressed for burning a flag, while all of those hippie communists are allowed to get away with burning American flags, and probably are paid to do it by the NEA. Those Tucson police are well known for being radical lefties who look for any chance to punish true patriots. Give me a break. This ignores the actual reasons for the arrest. Roy Warden, the flag burner, is being charged with three things: reckless burning, criminal damage and assault. Reckless burning is a charge that has been brought up against flag burners in the past, and federal courts have said that such prosecutions are legal because they apply if you are burning a Mexican flag, American flag, or a stack of Danielle Steele novels. I suppose Warden's supporters will still argue that prosecuting him for this is a violation of his rights, but that doesn't do anything about the other charges, one for the damage he caused to the shuffleboard courts and the other for assaulting a cameraman. I suppose next we'll hear that his striking the cameraman was because he felt opressed by liberal media bias. Given that Warden and his group were trespassing (rally organizers had a permit to use the park, the Guardians didn't), and that they were attempting to incite a riot, he was lucky to only get charged with these crimes. (Something I find interesting the various statements from immigration opponents about this incident is the implication that somehow American flags have been burned at protests in Tucson and Phoenix. Anyone heard that this has actually happened? Really? I didn't think so.) One of the most extreme examples of the new conservative "we-are-so-big-and-tough-but-we-will-cry-when-the-big-bad-liberals-do-something" school of rhetoric is Bill O'Reilly. He talks like some swaggering dockworker, but then claims that if some clerk at a Wal-Mart somewhere doesn't say "Merry Chistmas," he is being hurt deeply. Rep. Jonathan Paton, who has told colleagues that he isn't doing all of this for publicity, appeared on yesterday's O'Reilly Factor with Moon-yee Fung, president of Tucson High's Teenage Republican Club. Once again, they rehashed the cost of the busses during the student walkouts (requested, as it turns out, by the police) and Dolores Huerta's "Republicans Hate Latinos" statement. Apparently, Fung was so offended by this that she tried to leave, and wasn't allowed to. Unlike O'Rielly, I won't pretend to know the reasons for this. Ironically, Fung herself admits to voluntarilly attending the event, and supports some sort of legalization process for undocumented workers. Shh...don't be too loud about that part, or these new friends you just got will drop you and they can be a heck of a lot nastier than Dolores Huerta can be. Fung's supporters are claiming that she wanted so desperately to go to her own state legislative delegation about this incident, but they were Democrats and she was scared to talk to them. Yeah, that Victor Soltero is a scary, scary man. I don't want to pick on Fung because I became politically active around the same age she is now. Heck, if she thinks it is hard to organize Republicans at Tucson High, try to organize a Democratic club at St. Gregory, back in the days when they didn't give so many scholarships. My trouble here is with people on the right who poke around until they find a "victim" of yet another supposed lefty plot. It is ridiculous. What I would suggest to Fung is that she and her club engage in the discussion and show that there are well-intentioned Republicans like her that want sensible immigration reform. Given that the day before Fung appeared on the show, O'Rielly claimed that a Cleveland newspaper was "pro-criminal" because there were so many minorities there, that may be the wrong forum to give that message. Paton also tried to make a slap at Rep. Raul Grijalva for appearing on the campus. Grijalva did not even make a formal speech, but discussed issues with students. What's that? A congressman meeting with high school students? How dare he! You have kids meet with their community's leaders, they may grow up to be responsible members of society, they may even vote. We can't have this. (Hands up all of you who think that Republican hackles would be raised if Sen. Jon Kyl spoke on a high school campus somewhere.) As expected, O'Rielly merely used Paton and Fung as an excuse to whine that those darned public schools are indoctrinating our good American youth into being unabashed lefties. Given that Huerta was invited by the students, it doesn't sound like much indoctrination is necessary. O'Rielly cares so much about this issue by the way, that he claimed not to know who Dolores Huerta is, even though every story about this incident would have told him exactly who she is. By the way, Paton has been invited by Tucson High to speak, you know "fair and balanced" like, and he has refused. NB - Paton and Fung were not in O'Rielly's studio, of course, but were interviewed remotely. They were in the studios of KUAT, the local public television station located on the University of Arizona campus. I'll let you tally up the ironies.|W|P|114502589079851411|W|P|Whine Merchants|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/15/2006 01:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger The Screaming Centrist|W|P|Going off on a tangent, did you see how quickly that flag burned? Just a quick "FWOOSH!" and it was gone. What was that flag made of? I hope they're not making babies' clothing from it.4/16/2006 03:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger MD DAD|W|P|"Lighten up Francis" I'm no O'Reilly fan but I watch from time to time. Didn't see this segment but just read some quotes and recaps from yours and O'Reillys sites. He's right on this one. We all have opinions on this issue but the kids need to be in school learning the three r's along with History, Geography, Sciences the Constitution etc. Get off your high horse. Keep this stuff out of the schools. After school clubs can invite all the speakers they want and they should have opposing views so impressionable kids will hear both sides at the same event.4/13/2006 06:21:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I like Rep. Jonathan Paton, I've seen him at Hotel Congress a couple of times, and seems to be a decent guy. What frustrates me about him is that he believes that he needs to pander to the right wing of his party, a right wing that doesn't like him too much and won't no matter what he does. His latest act is attacking the Tucson Unified School District. He is angry over a speech given at Tucson High School by United Farm Workers leader Dolores Huerta. He is angry over statements supportive of Hugo Chavez and, most infamously, for saying "Republicans hate Latinos." Okay, I love Dolores Huerta, but the latter statement was probably inappropriate. However, it is instructive to note that Huerta was invited by a student organization. If local Republican leaders don't like the tone of the speech, a conservative student group can invite someone else to talk. I can't remember what that is called, it's a Greek word, oh yeah, democracy. (They can invite Randy Graf or Joe Sweeney and confirm that some Republicans, in fact, do hate Hispanics) Paton has sent a letter to the district demanding answers on both that and the amount of money spent on busses for Monday's rally. I can see that, if there are constituents who want answers. However, Paton is now threatening the district with subpoenas and "invited" Superintendent Roger Pfeuffer to "attend" a legislative hearing. He's got to know that his colleagues will just use this as an excuse to berate Pfeuffer in public (anyone who has seen the way they treat witnesses would know what I mean), and I don't see what this can result in except yet another reason for the legislature to go after public school funding. Yesterday, Paton also announced that he is again going after TUSD, again for a speech made at Tucson High School, this time by Rep. Raúl Grijalva this past Tuesday. You may remember at the begining of the month Grijalva, along with many local educational and civic leaders including Republican Mayor Bob Walkup, put out a call asking that students not participate in walk-outs and promised other opporitunities to discuss issues. In an open letter to the community, Grijalva and 25 others said:
To this point, only some student leaders have had the opportunity to participate in discussions about possible events to be held this week and in the future. We are committed to giving all students the opportunity to voice their opinions in a safe environment. Each school will provide opportunities from a menu that includes, but is not limited to, class discussions, forums, debates, panels, and letter or petition writing.
So, Grijalva was doing what he and many local leaders wanted, giving students a chance to express themselves without leaving class. Apparently, this wasn't even a full blown speech, but mostly a question and answer session. It is ridiculous to think that a congressman can't talk to a group of high school students in his own district. Neither Huerta or Grijalva is Paton's political cup of tea. This goes without saying. But it is overkill to declare war on the school district over this matter.|W|P|114493736394315870|W|P|Maybe They Can Subpoena the Spirit Club For Making Students Sit Through Another Stupid Pep Rally|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/13/2006 08:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Pfeuffer ought to take those student leaders who organizezd the event to the hearing and let them speak on his behalf. Let's see the bullies in the Legislature beat up on some kids.4/13/2006 08:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|What is wrong with Pep Rallies?

Why do you hate America? ;P4/14/2006 08:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|The bullies in the legislature don't care who they're beating up. They've attacked young people during committee hearings before and there's no doubt they'd do it again. You can't challenge their deeply-held convictions. They're attempting to intimidate the democracy out of the process of creating public policy. And in Arizona, for the most part, they've been successful.4/12/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I'm never sure why Boredinaz is so bored, or why this fella or fellee doesn't pick up a hobby. I mean, there are a lot of great outdoor activities here in the Grand Canyon State. But, he or she posts on here. That may account for the boredom. Just this morning, he or she commented on something I only started thinking about when Russell Pearce announced his endorsement of Don Goldwater. Could the Republican contest come down to a fight between the anti-immigrant forces and those who want a conservative social agenda? The "social conservative" side seems to have lined up with Len Munsil, who yesterday told the Arizona Capitol Times that he would like to see the rhetoric on immigration toned down, he even seemed to appreciate the tone of the massive demonstration that occurred on the streets of Phoenix. Comments on the front page of his website reflect this too. This is a far cry from statements from immigration foes like Pearce and Ron Gould. Goldwater, on the other hand, has courted groups like the Minutemen (even doing "shifts" with them, a great way to spend campaign time) and has made radical calls for restricting immigration and punishing those who stay illegally. He has even on a number of occasions called for drafting undocumented aliens into service cleaning up trash and building a border wall. Anyone remember when Republicans were excited about the 14th Ammendment? Unlike Munsil's page, the front of Goldwater's web page makes little mention of the social issues that excite "traditional values" voters. A poll came out this morning (pointed out by, you guessed it, Boredinaz) that gave Goldwater a 39-10 lead over Munsil, with Jan Smith-Florez coming in fourth behind some guy named Mike Harris. Some are saying that this means that Goldwater is the favorite (were these the same people reserving tickets to a Mary Peters inaugural a couple of months ago?), but I wonder why with his phenominal name ID, he isn't doing better. Munsil has a better grass roots network established, and he seems to have support of a lot of important folks within the party. I have no doubt that Goldwater's message is popular in the Republican base, but how many are picking him right now for that message, and how many because of the familiar name? I think it's too early too look at these polls, considering that other than collecting signatures and five dollar contributions, neither one has had the time to really make a connection with voters. If I were a cynical bastard, I would say this comes down to whether or not far right Republican primary voters hate gays or Mexicans more. What you have here is a serious argument between two issues important on the right wing of the party, and we will see which one Republican primary voters think is more important.|W|P|114488832131023890|W|P|This Is Like When I Watch New York vs. DC United: I'm Only Cheering for Injuries and Red Cards|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/12/2006 05:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|If this keeps up it would not surprise me to see John Greene get back in the race.

I think a lot of Goldwater’s support goes beyond name ID. He enterered the race very early and has been working Pima County much more effectively than Munsil. Goldwater must have noticed that from the 2000 results that you need a lot more than Maricopa to win the Governor’s race.

If you check Munsil’s site for events and you will see the concentration on the Phoenix area.4/12/2006 08:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|Munsil seems to be setting his strategy more for the general election, and assuming his social conservative base can carry him through the primary.

Goldwater only option is to run the immigration play, because pretty soon the Munsil people will start reminding everyone that Don was pro-choice and more of a libertarian on social issues, before deciding to run for Governor.4/12/2006 08:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|My hunch is that Arpaio is just waiting in the wings for the time when he feels it is right for him to jump into the GOP race. He is an ideological moderate with a law and order background...which was the same appealing profile put forth by former Attorny General Napolitano in 2002.

A late start wouldn't hurt him because he already has high name ID, especially in the county that holds the greatest number of voters in the state.

Plus, he is passionately in love with himself and will claim the label of savior of his party. Munsil doesn't have the right resume, even if he is a smooth talker. He will scare off GOP moderates who will flock to Janet. The others are lightweights, even if they have famous last names to flout.

Very soon, the GOP is going to realize that Arpaio is their best shot at knocking off janet and bolstering Kyl. He can't continue to be the Mario Cuomo of Arizona politics and expect to be taken seriously as statewide political timber.

This year is the year he needs to shut his voluminous piehole, take off his hat and chuck it in the ring. I hope he DOESN'T, because I think he would give Janet (who I fervently support) a serious run for her money, but he should do it if he wants to known for more than tent cities and pink jammies on inmates.4/12/2006 09:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Arpaio was the guy who accused one of his opponents of raping his own mother right?

Yeah he is the savior of the GOP. *rolls eyes*4/12/2006 09:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Don was pro-choice but has been cultivating the pro-life crowd for many months. Many pro-life Republicans also want something done about the border so Munsil is not home free. Munsil certainly does have a good base I am just not sure much of it extends outside the Phoenix area.

Arpaio does not have a chance at getting the primary nomination. Moderates don’t win that race very often and I don’t think this year is any exception.

Kyl doesn’t need bolstering and Arpaio would not help in that area anyway. If it get close with Peterson the Republicans will poor so much money into the race even Jim will feel poor.4/13/2006 01:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|Have to disagree with you Rex -

Arpaio's profile is a *little* different than Napolitano's.

He's a corrupt, megalomaniacal blowhard with an affinity for TV cameras and dead prisoners.

Much as even Republicans despise her, Governor Napolitano really is "an ideological moderate with a law and order background."

Even if he won the Repub nomination, he would face a major uphill battle in the general election.

And given that he pissed off a lot of Repubs when he actually appeared in a Napolitano TV spot, getting the nomination would be far from a sure thing.4/13/2006 09:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|well, since you're going to link to my 'profile,' i put up a picture to give you people something to look at.

::sigh:: so much to respond to so early in the morning. here goes nothing.

1) Greene's not getting back into the race. He's already endorsed Harris who is also a social moderate.

2) Even though Tedski is correct that these poll results are probably a lot of name ID, the poll surveyed "likely GOP voters" many of whom should already know Lenny. So it's surprising he's only gotten 10% so far.

3) Arpaio isn't running. He already had his two press conferences on this. He knows he can't get the nomination b/c of his former support for Janet. The GOP is still pissed about that. Hence, the reason he had such a strong primary opponent last time. And, speaking of him, Joke didn't accuse his opponent of rape, he just enabled the guy's crazy mother by taking the report and leaking it to the press.

4) gopinsider is correct that Munsil is running a general election strategy now. That's why he's not granting interviews to major papers or participating in candidate forums like the one the other day in Tucson. If these poll #s continue, though, he'll have to change his tune.

5) I just noticed that Munsil and Goldwater look a lot alike. Same squinty eyes, same half assed smile, same hairdo (different parts), same ginormous nostrils. Only difference seems to be that Goldwater looks like an overweight middle aged alcholic and Munsil looks like his uptight little brother. Picture it: Donny comes home late, breaking curfew after hanging out all night w/ his redneck friends, and little Lenny runs to momma to tell on him.4/13/2006 08:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tony GOPrano|W|P|Goldwater can't even get his seed money. The only supporters he has are the Pachyderm Coalition, the far right Libertarians of the Republican Party. Munsil will be fully funded which makes the difference in any Primary....fergitaboutit!4/14/2006 02:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Tony is right...I think Munsil's supporters will show up in droves on election day. I think it is also important to note what effect this will have on other races...

If his supporters come out in the Repub primary, who will benefit in other races? Social conservatives like Randy Graf in the 8th Cong. distr.

Roger4/12/2006 07:46:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Rep. Russell Pearce announced his endorsement of Don Goldwater yesterday.|W|P|114485343186466650|W|P|In Case You Needed Another Reason Not to Vote For Don Goldwater|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/12/2006 07:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Oberon|W|P|........you had me at rum.4/12/2006 09:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|thats the scary thing

He is the scariest one out of all of them. The others in east mesa are at least willing to compromise on some issue. Take Farnsworth. He is sponsering almost 1\2 of the six identity theft bills that are being pushed by the Attorney General. They've done press conferences on the subjects as well. Russell Pearce is just uncompromising and unwilling to work with Democrats on ANY issue. Gary Pierce and Chuck Grey are also big proponents of the AG's identity theft legislation. This should be a no brainer- fighting against ID theft but people like Russell just don't get it.4/12/2006 12:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I find it fascinating in a rubber-necking-the-horrible-traffic-accident-sort-of way.

I'm curious to see how the anti-immigrant extremists (Goldwater) v. the anti-abortion & gay marriage extremists (Munsil) will play out in the Republican primary.

September can't come soon enough!4/12/2006 03:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2006/04/10/daily20.html?f=et73&hbx=e_du

wow. didn't see that one coming.4/12/2006 06:41:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Jon Kyl's campaign is criticizing Jim Pederson's campaign as desperate. Yes, Pederson is a desperate man who will turn over any rock, stoop to any low, leave no moral code unbroken to run for the United States Senate. His latest political attrocity is just too hideous to name. Hide the children, please. Pederson is... Pederson is... ...running ads. Yes, I know. This is a horrible thing that Pederson is doing. It makes me so ashamed to be one of his supporters. Please, please, Jim, end the horror before you have sulllied our unspolied politics in Arizona. I'm sorry, I don't know what came over me there. Kyl's campaign is criticizing Pederson for, uh, campaigning. I know, Pederson is just supposed to do his job and be merely a name on the ballot and allow Kyl to be reelected with little opposition. That sort of thing works so well in Belarus, after all. What seems desperate to me is Kyl's spokesman going after Pederson merely for running ads. Like Janet Napolitano, Kyl has a solid re-elect number right now. Unlike Napolitano, Kyl has dangerously low approval ratings. This indicates that he could be beaten if people know who his opponent is. The last thing they want is for anyone to know that someone is running against their guy. The ads are standard "let's introduce you to the candidate" fare. No attacks, and few issues. They remind me of, well, the ads that Jon Kyl himself ran before the primary in 1994. Those were on fairly early too. Interestingly, you could watch those ads and never know that Kyl had served a day in congress (or that his pre-congressional career was as a lobbyist). You'd just think he was some guy who's radiator blew on I-10 one day. Maybe Kyl's people just think he is just so wonderful and so deserving that no one should run against him. That is a heck of an attitude for his campaign to have in a democracy.|W|P|114485041475293520|W|P|Jon Kyl: Desperate|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/12/2006 02:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|well, since no one else is commenting on this post, i will.

Why the picture of Guy Smiley? Deadpan Kyl is the opposite of the game show host Muppet.

I don't get it.4/12/2006 04:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|The hair, the face, that phony wide smile...when I first saw him all those many years ago, Guy Smiley is who I thought of.4/12/2006 05:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I saw both the Pederson adds. Of course he has every right to run ads but I was wondering why he does not identify his party? Is he ashamed to state clearly that he is a Democrat? The former State Party Chair? Talk about someone whose radiator blew out on I-10.4/12/2006 08:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|They are scared. Scared that people will realize that they have an option beyond reelecting party-line Kyl who just seems to follow his marching orders from an extremely unpopular White House.4/12/2006 06:13:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I received a letter this weekend from David Waid, who is currently Executive Director of the Arizona Democratic Party. He is running for chairman of the party, which is highly unusual, but doesn't violate any sort of rules. Heck, he's been running the party for months anyway. There was talk that there might be an exciting race, with Democratic Party Vice Chair and Gila County Democratic chairman Mark Reza vowing to run. Reza's claim apparently was that the state party wasn't "progressive" enough. Not progressive enough for Gila County? Well, that claim aside, Reza was listed on Waid's letter as a supporter, so I assume that he is no longer running. Rep. Ted Downing was spotted with a copy of the rules to run for chairman last week, but he's got to many other fish to fry to run himself and he hasn't been talking up any other candidates. So, I guess this will be a dull, dull meeting. I'll drive all the way up to Phoenix to vote for Waid, how exciting. With a dull meeting like this on tap, how will we drum up enough people for a quorum? Maybe we could do what a minor league baseball team does to drum up fans: a fireworks show! run the bases with the mascot! (who is our mascot?) dollar beer night! The possibilities are endless. The New York Red Bulls are desperate for fans, so they invited Shakira. I'd be up for that. Hey David, see what you can do about that.|W|P|114484913554741982|W|P|Chairmanship Race Looks to Be a Bore|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/12/2006 09:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|hey!

what about hanging with us!

boring!?4/12/2006 03:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|No event is boring with Tom-AZ around...4/11/2006 11:45:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The National Republican Congressional Committee has its panties in a bunch. Apparently, they sent the CD 8 Democratic candidates questionaires. -gasp- They refused to fill them out. I know, it's very very shocking. I imagine that they probably saw the envelope and assumed that it was more junk mail, I mean, a "personal bulletin and survey" from Elizabeth Dole. They wanted to know where the Democrats would have voted on several resolutions from the last congressional session. Of course, the candidates didn't answer. Why the heck would they answer a Republican survey? I mean, only a Democratic candidate who is totally off the rails would answer a survey from the NRCC or do something similarly silly like post to Bill Frist's PAC's blog. One of the bills named was the "Victory in Iraq Resolution (RCV 648)" That one passed, and oddly enough, we are still fighting there. I suppose if Jeff Latas or Gabrielle Giffords would have answered this question, the insurgency would collapse. Funny thing, from what I understand, the NRCC has a full blown research staff to find out the candidates' positions on these issues. They probably know the candidates stands better than the candidates do. They do this so the day after the primary they can twist a candidate's statements and record to make him or her look like the unholy offspring of Leon Trotsky, Jane Fonda and John Wayne Gacy. One has to wonder why they would want the candidates to answer such a survey and do this job for them. Unless... Unless maybe they don't have a decent opposition research this time. Yeah, they are desperate. Maybe this whole DeLay and Abramoff thing has starved them of the money to do decent research. Who knows? Could be true.|W|P|114482539555982366|W|P|NRCC Whining|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/12/2006 09:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|hey, you know that Gabby can solve all the world's problems...or if she does not then she can be blamed for them.4/11/2006 09:28:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Some Romanism today: Depending on whose calendar you look at, either today is St. Stanislaus day, or we should wait until May 8th. The day is supposed to be the anniversary of Stanislaus's martyrdom in 1079. Not only can people not agree on the day, but there is a dispute about whether he qualifies as a martyr. The man born Stanisław Szczepanowski is one of the patron saints of Poland. He served as bishop of Kraków at a time when the Polish nation was still being established. He spoke out against immorality among the people, but was also willing to point out immorality among their leaders as well. This made him run afoul of the king, Bolesław II the Bold. The king and he struggled against each other for years. Legend has it that at one point the king brought Stanisław into court over a land dispute, Stanisław resurected a long dead witness just to testify on his behalf. This was not a man who should be messed with. The final straw came when the king mistreated the wives of soldiers who were on a protracted war against Ruthenia. The king had also kidnapped the wife of a nobleman for his own purient reasons. Stanisław criticized him for both of these, participated in a plot to depose the king, and excommunicated him. In retaliation, Bolesław branded Stanisław a traitor, which in those days meant execution. Bolesław sent soldiers into a church to execute Stanisław while he was celebrating mass (thus drawing some historical comparisons to St. Thomas Becket). The soldiers refused to do it, so Bolesław did it himself and had the body dismembered. Since he was killed for what can be called a political dispute and not for his faith, some say that he doesn't qualify as a martyr. However, he was killed for speaking the truth to and challenging those in power. To him, that was a responsiblity that his faith called him to. Interestingly, Bolesław abdicated and became a penitent at a monastery in Hungary. Benedictine monks in Eastern Europe later venerated him as Blessed Bolesław, King and Penitent. Forgiveness is always possible.|W|P|114477485132690462|W|P|St. Stanislaus|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/11/2006 06:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|That was interesting Ted.4/11/2006 06:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Las week we were treated to tales from our so-called Republican leadership in this state that a large scale demonstration would end in some sort of riot too big for the police to handle. They said that we needed to call out the National Guard, and they were scared of that big bad, mostly Latino crowd. I'm sorry, they weren't saying they were scared because the crowd would be mostly Latino, were they? No, they would never say something like that to pander to the most fearful and bigoted parts of their constituency, would they? So, I guess now they will be giving Janet Napolitano some credit for seeing that we didn't need to spend all that taxpayer money to call out the National Guard. Now we can spend that money on something better, like a poorly thought out tax breaks. They also owe an apology to the Phoenix Police. They were competent enough to handle the situation without the Guard. Obviously, the Republicans who were calling for a deployment didn't think so. No incidents were reported in Phoenix, but on the other hand, down here.... Well, you remember when Ron Gould said that there would be "outside agitators" that could disrupt the protests? Well, it turned out that they were people on Sen. Gould's side. Must have been how he knew. Several members of the group Border Guardians, who are kind of like the Minutemen, but they consider sitting on lawnchairs outside of Sasabe to be too strenuous, decided to stage a "counter-protest." The "counter-protest" consisted of them hurling invective at the marchers, wearing shirts with offensive slogans on them, and burning a Mexican flag. Oh yeah, the Border Guardians do all this because they care about immigrants too. The protest organizers had several minders who kept the crowd back from the "counter-protestors." Unfortunately, one protestor threw water at one of the Border Guardians. The protestor, a fifteen year old, was arrested. Protestors became agitated because of her age, and tried to attack the police. The minders mostly did a great job keeping the crowd back. Oh, Senator Gould, the police were able to handle it without the National Guard, 82nd Airborne or the Rough Riders. (I probably should throw in the 54th Massachusetts just to tick Gould off.) Was it not too smart to throw water at the guy? Definitely not too smart. Was it not too smart to attack the police? Definitely not too smart. But the fact that the thing did not escalate into a larger incident once again proves that fears that these protests would turn into a Rangers-Celtic derby were unfounded. (By the way, to give you an idea of the credibility of the Border Guardians, perrenial racist (his word, not mine) candidate Joe Sweeney was with them.) Of course, at least one local station, KVOA, had a reporter assigned to the Border Guardians. Yes, assigned to the Border Guardians. They also had a second reporter at the police station. The two were Sandy Rathbun and Lupita Murillo, two of their more long standing reporters with a heck of a lot of gravitas. Of course, Murillo was the one at the police station. Who knows what the Guardians would have said to her with that last name. So, they take their more seasoned "serious" reporters and assign them to cover the yahoos and to wait at the police station hoping for arrests. Heck, makes you wonder if they wanted trouble. It also begs the question, would the Guardians have even pulled this stunt if they didn't think a TV camera would be following them? The reporter they assigned to talk to the crowd was a newer, less experienced reporter. She gave a good report, speaking to several marchers and some of the counter demonstrators on the parade route. However, when they assign your "name" reporters to cover something else, it tells you which side they take more seriously. The event went well, but I have to have something to complain about, right? NB - Michael Marizco has an extensive report on his site, Border Reporter. He has criticism for both the police and organizers for the flag burning incident.|W|P|114476511786001281|W|P|Wow, I Guess That Turned Out Not to Be So Scary, Eh?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/11/2006 08:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|I honestly thought the coverage on 9 was much better than that of channel 4.

The video was much better and the reaction pieces caught the frenzy of the moment.

Also on channel 13 yesterday, they had some great vid of that bigot Ron whatever-his-last-name-is, elbowing a hispanic Tucson Citizen photographer in the face, not once, but three times. Where was the arrest of that a-hole TPD??4/11/2006 03:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|tee, hee. fun with the internet...

so i click on Tedski's link to Ron Ghoul's web site and most of the page pops up, except only half of the picture of him show up. So I'm waiting for the rest of the page, staring at his crotch (covered by his hands thankfully) thinking "ugh!"

Then, the top half of the picture appears showing his face and I think, "UGH!"

thanks for the link (and the nightmare) Tedski.4/11/2006 05:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|This is why I never click on links from Ted's blog.4/10/2006 10:19:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Most of you saw J. D. Hayworth on Meet The Press with Tim Russert (Whatever happened to that nice Lawrence Spivak, why isn't he on anymore?) What many of you may not have noticed was a, well, not a lie, not a preverication, maybe just certain facts left out. Hayworth was hoping only to talk about how he is going to stop all of those illegals from hopping our fences and impregnating our nubile young women or something like that. When Russert (who has developed a pair as of late) asked him about the Abramoff contributions:
You know, I’m so glad you raised that, because I took the step of writing the tribes that support me. We should point out, when I was elected to Congress, I have more American Indians in my district, nearly one out of every four of my constituents was American Indian, I’m part of a Native American caucus, the co-chair. The real story would have been if the tribes were not supporting me. But you know what I did? I wrote the tribes who enlisted Abramoff and his associates as lobbyists, I said, “Do you want your campaign contributions back?” And they said, “No.” They said, “You have consistently stood up for the sovereign rights of Native peoples, and we respect that, whoever our advocate is in Washington.”
You know, if you believe that he was glad that Russert raised the question, you may just believe the rest of his answer. Yes, when Hayworth was elected, his district was heavily Native American. It included the Navajo, Hopi and White Mountain Apache, three of the largest native nations in the country. However, these have since been razored out of the district, and he now represents the much smaller Ft. McDowell and Salt River Pima nations. The native population of his district is still significant, but it is deceptive to imply that he represents an overwelmingly Native American district. The other thing that is deceptive: the contributions in question did not come from tribes in his district, or even in Arizona. His TEAM PAC, of which Abramoff was an early and significant supporter, was funded by Jack Abramoff connected tribes. As I have written here before, the PAC has only one employee, Hayworth's wife, Mary. Also, the assertion that he's had friendly conversations with the tribes about the money and they don't want it back is incorrect. At least one tribe in Texas has said that they would like their money back. Another thing that he said that I found interesting:
As I write in my book, let’s take a look back to 2004. Proposition 200 on the ballot in Arizona, to deprive illegals of social benefits, and it passed overwhelmingly. And as the Arizona Daily Star reported, it passed with a majority of Hispanic votes as well. The fact is, Hispanics voted in greater numbers for Proposition 200 than they did for President Bush, who received 43 percent of the Hispanic vote in Arizona.
I don't know about the stats on Hispanic support of Proposition 200 that he quotes, but I do know of one Anglo that came out publically against it: him, along with the rest of the congressional delegation. When will someone in the press ask him why he's flip-flopped on this?|W|P|114473397992438233|W|P|Hayworth on Russert|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/11/2006 06:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|Plus J.D. claimed that all the money his wife had received was from "over a decade" when in reality, TEAM PAC has only been in existence for 7-years. And the fact remains, that Mary's salary has been almost half as much as the actual funds that the PAC has distributed to actual candidates.

The fact that it's not a larger amount of money over that time period doesn't make it ethical (sure Tom DeLay's wife took a lot more), it just means that J.D. isn't nearly as much of a D.C. player as he would like to be - and not as good at fundraising as he probably wishes he were.4/11/2006 05:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I dare you to do it Ted at the next town hall meeting he has.

And I bet it will not be in Tempe, when I was downtown today I picked up my precinct numbers. Tempe really does not like JD that much.4/10/2006 06:38:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The right in this country finds flag burning such an offense that they are willing to mess with the first ammendment to jail people. So, why wouldn't they think that the burning of the Mexican flag would be offensive? Some members of the group Border Guardians, decided to stand in front of the Mexican consulate on Sunday and burn El Tricolor. These are the guys that raised such a stink a month or so back when a Mexican official dared to give a speech in Spanish at the U of A. One of their leaders, a woman named Lawless of all things, said this to the Arizona Daily Star:
We're not picking on Mexicans specifically, but we're blaming their government and their citizens who are here illegally in the U.S.
We're not picking on Mexicans, but we are burning a Mexican flag. Oh, okay then. Even their own website says that the burning of the Mexican flag was to protest "Mexican disrespect of American Sovreignty." So, they aren't protesting against Mexicans specifically, but they are specifically protesting against Mexicans. Their website also calls humanitarian aid workers "treasonous" (thereby considering it a capitol offense to give someone water), decries protestors for carrying American flags (they are anti-patriots when they don't, and apparently they are desecrating the flag when they do), labels people who don't hold their racist views traitors, and cheers on the bizarre prosecution of Daniel Strauss and Shanti Sellz. It would be easier to admire the stones of these people if they were burning the Mexican flag in front of the consulate if the consulate wasn't closed at the time. Wow, that's bravery. Heck, with that level of courage, even the Minutemen could make fun of you guys. I heard a rumor that the Minutemen were going to be at today's rally. Is it really going to be the Minutemen, or just these schlubs? I ask because I had an idea for a sign. It comes from something I posted on Enviro Hanky. I was thinking of buying a beer for anyone that makes a sign that says this:
Do Your Wives Call You Minutemen Too?
Ad hominem attacks can be fun.|W|P|114467791741582140|W|P|What a Bunch of Jerks|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/10/2006 08:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|But Tedski, we live in a state where nobody is racist and nobody is against the Mexicans. They're merely concerned with the law (which they could've been concerned with ten years ago, except perhaps they were going through an Anarchist phase. Ah, youth.)4/10/2006 08:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|Let's hope if they try and burn any flags today, they are arrested for trying to incite a riot.4/10/2006 09:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|This is going to be the issue that will force the Repugs to face the fact that they have been in bed with bigots.

Now it comes up to the Repugs: either repudiate these people or embrace them. Looking at the recent GOP Governor Sacrificial Lamb forum, I say they embrace these idiots thereby putting the Repugs in the same class as the David Dukes of the world. Not a winning formula.4/10/2006 10:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|If they do burn any flags today GOPINSIDER, then they ARE trying to incite a riot.4/10/2006 12:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|Mr. T -

I thought that's what I said?

Perhaps I should have used the term "I pity the fool!" :-)4/10/2006 02:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jeneiene Schaffer|W|P|Well, it was hard to tell what brand of bigotry showed up at the rally today. There was five or six of them. They were *completely surrounded* by peacekeepers with their arms interlocked. To prevent violence. Apparently folks were throwing water bottles at them, but when I pushed threw the throng to get a peek, only the damn media were getting close to them.

Did y'all read in the paper the other day how Ms. Lawless says she wears a padded vest in case she gets attacked by protesters? Well, missy, you didn't need it today.4/10/2006 02:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Man Eegee|W|P|Just got back from the Tucson rally, they did burn a Mexican flag. Their shirts were riddled with racist slogans. There was a peace chain formed around them by our side, to shield their hatred from the marchers.4/10/2006 04:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|There's video of the flag burning on cnn.com.

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2006/04/10/vo.az.mexican.flag.burning.kvoa4/10/2006 05:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Ted:

Do their wives call them Minutemen too?

No, actually most of their wives call them "My ex."4/10/2006 06:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Gosh dang, Ted.

Up at the top of your blog where the ads go, is an ad for a Republican running for Congress in Idaho and a 'Meet Republican singles' ad.

This is one reason why I haven't signed up to accept advertising on my blog.4/10/2006 09:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Ted is trying to save up a few $$ to run for the State House in D-28. That's why he runs the ads..4/10/2006 10:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I told Ted I would donate some of the seed money to his campaign...:(

Although actually this is a case of "It is okay I do it." The right has a habit of demanding we adhere to their stupid standards but then not fufilling them themselves.4/09/2006 09:24:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|They are running a story on Weekend Edition Sunday about a Republican Party meeting in South Carolina. They played a bit from a discussion on immigration, one activist said this:
We need to put up a big electric fence and maybe kill a few, I'm sorry, but that's what we need to do.
Well, I guess it's nice to hear that he's sorry he wants to kill people. I wonder if he considers himself pro-life?|W|P|114460003663908707|W|P|As Heard on NPR|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/09/2006 10:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|DUH!

Those Mexicanos aren't human so its okay to kill them!!!!!!!

/snark4/09/2006 12:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I heard it too. There are a lot of people out there that feel that way. You should hear local talk radio in the south...wow!!!4/10/2006 05:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Wonder if we can test the fence out by throwing a few of these jerks into it first.4/08/2006 05:21:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, our friend J. D. Hayworth is at it again. He has decided to step into the whole ELL silliness by authoring a bill that declares that the bill passed by the Arizona Legislature is in compliance with federal law. Done. Wow...it's really that simple, eh? Nice of Mr. Hayworth to jump into this whole thing when it is still up before a federal judge whose job it is to interpret the law. You know, that pesky separation of powers thing. He says that he did this at the request of Tom Horne. A simpler solution for Horne would have been to ask his friends at the legsilature to pass a bill that actually funded English Language Learning in this state. It is helpful to point out that Horne can't be too confident that the bill that was passed will address the issue to the satisfaction of Judge Rainer Collins or he wouldn't run to Hayworth before Collins has even issued a decision. The reason why the bill has had so much trouble getting by Gov. Janet Napolitano was that the Republicans insisted in using the ELL issue as an excuse for corporate tax credits. What the heck a tax credit for private schools has to do with English Language Learners is beyond me. Few, if any, private schools in Arizona serve English language learners. You have to wonder how the Republicans can be so scared of gay marriage, but they allow the unnatural union linking these two issues to continue. Napolitano allowed the last version of the bill to pass without her signature even though it still had the tax credits, but it spent some money on English Language Learners. I guess the Republicans finally remembered what the bill was suposed to be for. Hayworth's involvement in the issue follows a pattern established of late. His front page usually contains at least one item on some percieved policy failure on Napolitano's (or Goddard's) part. I guess this would make more sense if he was campaigning for state office. It also would be more appropriate if he was not using federal money to do this sort of campaigning on state issues. Last week, the State Democratic Party took him to task for his federally funded press person issuing campaign related statements. For example, his press release on this issue contained this item:
According to news reports, a private attorney hired to represent the state by Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard told U.S. District Judge Raner Collins that key parts of the Legislature's plan violate federal law, a strategy encouraged by the Governor. "It is shameful that the Governor and Attorney General have actively sabotaged the state's case and orchestrated a judicial power grab," said Hayworth. "We must not allow Arizona's ELL program to be run by an unelected and unaccountable federal judge just because the Governor can't bring herself to compromise with the legislature."
See what I mean? He obviously thinks that Napolitano is an abject failure. Since he is such a man of principle and courage, I take it that he will take the first chance he can to run against her and rid this state of her menace. Oh? He whimped out of that? Can't be. He's so brave. He's so brave that he's ghostwritten a book picking on migrant workers. By the way, I've talked to a few people and there is no way that this thing has the time to percolate through the process this session, much less before Collins issues a decision. So, this thing is just a really elaborate press release paid for by you, the taxpayer.|W|P|114454463017862582|W|P|Clearly, They Aren't Giving the Man Enough to Do|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/09/2006 03:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Geo|W|P|We often call bloviating, agitating politicians "demagogues" as a matter of course. But when someone like J.D. Hayworth comes along, you see where the word really reaches it's fullest sense.

From the Wikipedia entry, a demagogue is someone who employs the "strategy of obtaining power by appealing to the gut feelings of the public, usually by powerful use of rhetoric and propaganda"

It also notes that "H. L. Mencken, an American critic, defined a demagogue as "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

In fact, the Wiki article on demagogy is so spot-on a description of J.D.'s methods, it really ought to have his picture there for illustration. It's eerie how some of the specific techniques of the demagogue are those that Hayworth has most honed.

J.D. Hayworth: A Demagogue for the 21st Century.4/09/2006 10:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|JD must sure be as happy as a pig in mud. Able to make outlandish claims without any sort of repercusions. problem for the Attorney General is that if he knowingly went and represented the state on a position he knowingly knew violated federal law, he could go to jail for it. JD doesn't have those kinds of restrictions. How nice it must be.

Its so funny though in these kinds of cases because mostly in politics people like JD can demogauge this issue and for the most part "win" the public relations battle but in a court battle where the final say won't be JD's press releases but rather whatever Judge Rainer decides... thats where the facts win out.

I mean, it states clearly and consicly in the federal statues attached to the de-segregation dollars and other types of federal funding that you CANNOT pull the antics the state legislature is trying to pull. It doesn't dance around the subject, it specifically says that is against the law.

So JD will win this round but the AG and Tim Hogan will win the final battle.4/09/2006 12:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Anyone see J.D. on "Meet the Press" this morning? He looked pretty extreme and Tim Russert brought up his ethics problems. He did not look pleased...especially since Russert mentioned the tough challenger he was facing.4/10/2006 08:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|Anyone see the article in the New York Times this weekend about the family ties in the Abramoff case in which spouses of politicians and lobbyists were paid by Abramoff and his supporters? How soon will it come out that Abramoff was paying part of Mary Hayworth's salary at J.D.'s PAC that she was running?4/10/2006 10:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|gopinsider, it came out yesterday (albeit briefly) on Meet the Press. JD cut Russert off though4/08/2006 03:55:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of the things that I have always found amusing is that any Republican losing an argument, anywhere, anytime for any reason loves to bring up Ted Kennedy. It's like Chappaquiddick makes everything from Watergate, Iran-Contra, Jack Abramoff to, I dunno, this business with pedophile employees of Homeland Security, is okay because one Democratic Senator had a car accident thirty years ago. Here in Arizona, the bugaboo is Dennis DeConcini. If you ever allege any sort of corruption against a Republican, they will bring up DeConcini. The fact that the guy has been out of office for over a decade doesn't seem to matter, everything any Arizona Republican will ever do will be erased by his tenure. Of course, few can tell you what it is he did that was so wrong, but that isn't really the point is it? Never mind the fact that a room full of high ranking Republican officials in this state who have never been touched by any scandal as serious as what DeConcini was accused of doing would be, well, close to empty. This came up when Gov. Janet Napolitano appointed Dennis DeConcini to the Arizona Board of Regents. Republicans were livid, those people that only a few months ago wanted Fife Symington to run for Governor again bringing up the Keating Five thing one more time. Say, who was that one Senator on the Keating Five, you know, the only one that never gave the money back? Well, the DeConcini "issue" is back, this time in beautiful San Diego, California. The district was represented until very recently by a fella named Randy "Duke" Cunningham, or "Duke-stir" to the folks that visited him on his boat. The Democratic candidate is named Francine Busby, and she has able to get a lot of traction from Cunningham's corruption and the wider corruption in the Republican caucus. She looks like she can win the special election. So, now the National Republican Congressional Committee is funding ads attacking her for her corruption. Why, she's Albert Fall, Spiro Agnew and John Jenrette rolled up into one. How do we know this? She...she... It's so hard to even say it, I am so disgusted... She took a $500 check from Sen. DeConcini. All the humanity! The horror of it all! Yep, folks. That is the best they can do. Here is the real fun part. The NRCC took a check from Rep. Cunningham before he was sentenced, not a whimpy $500 either. They accepted nearly $12,000 before his guilty plea, then an additional $2000 after his guilty plea. So, they are running an ad essentially paid for by a guy who was convicted of some rather extravagant corruption to allege that someone else is corrupt for taking a pittance from a guy who was never convicted of anything. I was trying to come up with something clever and snarky to say, but this one speaks for itself. NB - Since the NRCC is so offended by the Keating Five, does that mean that John McCain will not be campaigning for Republican House candidates this year?|W|P|114453974632590434|W|P|Since they Have Nothing Else, DeConcini is an Issue Again|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/09/2006 03:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Geo|W|P|The strategy here, as I understand it, is to basically smear Busby just enough so she doesn't get an outright majority in the Special. Not everyone who hears the smear attempt will take the effort to understand the underlying farce. If they can keep Busby from getting 51%, then they can force a runoff.

Then, they're hoping that the various voters who are currently supporting any number of GOP and Indy candidates will get behind the one top vote-getting Republican who will compete against Busby in the runoff.

The NRCC know what they're doing is basically dishonest. You'd never want to do business with people that behave in such a scurrilous manner. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with them, at all. But somehow, in politics, their lack of integrity is roundly cheered by many. Which, of course, is quite hypocritical, dishonest and sad.

All the more reason why people in CA-50 who TRULY are people of integrity - Republicans, Democrats and Independents - should clearly repudiate the NRCC tactics and vote for Busby.4/10/2006 08:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Does this mean DeConcini is still living in La Jolla or was the contribution made before he was appointed to the Board of Regents?4/08/2006 07:25:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Greg Patterson over at Espresso Pundit took issue with my use of a picture of the Kent State tragedy in 1970 when discussing the use of the National Guard to patrol Phoenix during Monday's protests. One could infer from Patterson's comments that I am somehow anti-military, or at the least, distrustful of the National Guard. This ignores the fact that I grew up in a military household (my father served several tours in Viet-Nam while serving in the Air Force for 23 years), and if not for a failed physical (I'm a whimp, what can I say?) I would be a member of the Arizona Air National Guard now. I realize that this barely makes me Chuck Yeager, but I am a supporter of the armed forces. My problem, and the photograph was there to dramatise this, is that our state leaders think that the best solution to everything in the immigration issue seems to be calling out the guard. The tragedy that occurred at Kent State wasn't only about the protestors that were killed, but also for the National Guardsmen themselves. Their leaders called them out to do a job they weren't trained to do, and forced them into decisions that they now probably regret. I read of a recent statement of one leader from the Arizona National Guard who spoke about similar worries should the guard be stationed on the border. Also, when I see the rhetoric coming from those who are calling for a Guard presence, I get a bit worried about their motives. When I hear Rep. Pamela Gorman refer to the protestors, not the migrants, but the protestors, as an "invading army" (even though the lion's share of them will be citizens) and Phoenix talkshow hosts calling for violence against migrants, I get apprehensive about what exactly they want from a Guard presence. All political activists, no matter what their ideology, have a paranoid whack job hidden inside us. Most of us hide it pretty well. I hear statements from Gorman and Brian James, the paranoid inside me wonders it some of these folks actually want something to happen like this. I'm not saying they want anyone killed, but maybe they think that if someone, as the English would say, throws a stick about, that they can stop the pro-migrant movement. Folks, that isn't the Guard's job. What would the Republicans be saying if Democratic leadership was pleading for the Guard to be called out for a pro-life rally?|W|P|114450774849730744|W|P|Calling Out the Guard|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/08/2006 12:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|“Guard to be called out for a pro-life rally?”

Great idea! We would welcome the chance to get our message out to an even larger audience. Oh and we would call a press conference about it to get more publicity.4/08/2006 07:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mr Stapleton|W|P|Gorman is such a Republican tool. There are no original ideas from Gorman. At least Gould and Pearce have the courtesy of coming up with crazy ideas.4/09/2006 06:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Leonard Clark|W|P|The immigrants are for the great majority honest, hard working, peaceful and good human beings.
Calling in the military is way over the line for a civil march.
I just got out of the Az. Guard and I can tell you that the last thing we need to worry about is wielding clubs against peaceful human beings who are non-violent.

I just got back from Iraq in Feb. 2006 with a Guard unit and one of the major causes of violence over there was religious conservative politician-priests who provoked and fomented such hate between ethnic and religious groups that it now causes more murders than the morgue can investigate.
Hmmm... Conservative politician type priests, wait a second, can you say hate pandering fundamentalist conservative immigrant haters? OF Course,
HATE ALWAYS GETS THE VOTE EXCEPT WHEN CITIZENS ARE EDUCATED. I HOPE TO GOD OUR CITIZENS ARE EDUCATED.
Sincerly,
Leonard Clark
The Damn Liberal,
Desert Storm/Iraq War III Vet,
and Canddiate
For the U.S. Senate
In Arizona on the Democratic
Ticket phone 623-205-2832
email: leonardclark385@hotmail.com4/09/2006 10:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|tedski, this is great. It looks like the Democrats now have two candidates for the Senate from which to choose. Will your blog have a link to Leonard Clark’s campaign site (if/when he has one?) If he gets the nomination and runs against Kyl that would make for an interesting debate.4/07/2006 12:00:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|An alert that went out from United Families Arizona, one of the groups pushing for the so-called Marriage Protection Ammendment:
In the past couple of months, pro-marriage supporters in two states, California and Florida, have failed to gather enough signatures to put marriage protection amendments on their ballots. The anti-marriage activists have started to brag that these failures show that support for traditional marriage is declining and that it is a good sign that they are going to eventually succeed in legalizing same-sex marriage.

We here in Arizona can help show that this is not true by putting the Protect Marriage Amendment on the ballot in November but we need your help to do it!

To get this amendment on the ballot, the Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition, which United Families Arizona is a member of, must turn in 183,917 valid signatures of registered voters by July 6th We are making good progress, but we need a lot more help to reach that goal.

Polls show that the marriage amendment should win in November if we can get it on the ballot. Passing this amendment will not only protect marriage in Arizona, but send a strong signal to the rest of the country that marriage is important and we WILL defend it.

Organizers are having a lot more trouble collecting the signatures they need than they thought. They have been working on this since last summer, but still apparently haven't gotten their act together. They were also stymied in their efforts to collect in front of some churches, since they seem to take that whole thing about their tax-exempt status seriously. Wait, couldn't they pay for signatures? R-Cubed's spies tell us that neither of the big signature gathering firms that work Arizona has been contracted to work on this effort. One has actually refused to carry it all together, worried that it will turn off people to signing other things that they are working on. By the way, Republican mastermind and accused voter registration form destroyer Nathan Sproul is one of the people helping out this effort. Gosh, this sort of failure will be so bad for his reputation as an organizer. Too bad, Nate.|W|P|114439384393293392|W|P|I Cried About This for, I Dunno, Seconds|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/07/2006 07:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|A couple of years ago they tried to do something like this in New Mexico. They had trouble getting enough signatures to get something similar on the ballot, also the Sec. of State in NM went on the record as saying that she would not put it on the ballot because they were collecting in illegal places. This caused a big fight between the SoS and the AG.

Needless to say that most people don't have a problem granting 'marriage rights' as long as we don't call it 'marriage'. This is where I find fault with my own people, why are we so hell bent on calling it 'marriage', I personally think that we should not be so damn worried about what it is called, but be concerned about what rights it grants.

I also know that most people don't give two hoots who somebody is sleeping with. They are more concerned with keeping a job, and buying gas. LGBT and straight alike have these concerns.4/07/2006 07:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Culture of Corruption? I guess Bob Ney has some company in West Virginia’s CD 1. See Friday’s Wall Street Journal for the details. I know that out of fairness Tedski will soon be covering this story.4/07/2006 08:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|If you've ever wondered what Phx Kid looks like, look up "Non sequitur" in the dictionary, and you will find his picture.4/07/2006 08:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|OK Tom, you got me, I am off topic.

Back on topic, maybe they have barely enough signatures for the Protect Marriage Amendment but are trying to scare the troops into making a last push to put them over the top. I think it is telling that they are not realizing the signature count at this time. There could be too reasons. They have so few it’s hopeless. The other scenario is that they have enough but want a larger cushion just to be sure, so they press the panic button. I think it is the second case but we will see. None of this is crucial, if they don’t win this year they will be back next cycle.4/07/2006 08:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Sorry - releasing not realizing4/07/2006 10:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger The Screaming Centrist|W|P|They were also stymied in their efforts to collect in front of some churches, since they seem to take that whole thing about their tax-exempt status seriously.

That, and there are several churches against the Protect Marriage Amendment.4/07/2006 10:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger KR|W|P|Just FYI, in regards to:

"The other scenario is that they have enough but want a larger cushion just to be sure, so they press the panic button. I think it is the second case but we will see."

It's the first one.4/07/2006 12:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|kr are you predicting that the marriage amendment will not make the ballot?4/07/2006 12:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Matt v. Kevin|W|P|Actually, since it's a ballot initiative, IRS guidelines allow non-profit c(3) organizations to support it as much as they choose. Most (if not all) churches are c(3)'s for the tax-exempt status, and as such, they are free to do as they choose with ballot initiatives.

Perhaps you're thinking of supporting or opposing specific candidates, which c(3)'s are not allowed to do.4/07/2006 01:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|And those gay homosexuals who want special, special rights prance down Central Avenue waving their Canadian flags! We must continue to be as offended as possible at everything they do.

Or, we could get a life and move on.4/07/2006 11:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|What ever became of the criminal charges against Nathan Sproul for voter fraud in Oregon?4/07/2006 11:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger SonoranDesertRat|W|P|If this fails to make the ballot, that's a huge win. Not just for the common idea of, oh, say treating people like people regardless of who they're attracted to; but also for the fact that the right-wing evangelicals aren't going to have the gay-marriage bogeyman to help their GOTV effort.4/06/2006 07:53:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This is from the front page of the Superintendent of Public Instruction's website. You know, the office that's run by Tom Horne, one of those conservatives that goes on and on about declining standards:
The paradigm shift, since I took office is that the Department of Education will be primarily a service organization, helping school districts and charter schools achieve more academic success. The Department is also an organization that assures compliance, and we will have to be conscientious about that, but the compliance function will be secondary. The primary function is now: service.
Okay, what the heck is with that comma after "paradigm shift?" The second sentence looks to be a run-on and doesn't seem to belong there. That third sentence is improperly punctuated. The whole paragraph smacks of meaningless "corporatespeak." It is the sort of thing a college student would write when he or she hopes to snow their instructor by how many big words and long sentences they can throw around. Most of the English teachers in this state would hand this back to Mr. Horne with a big red "rewrite" written across the top. NB - Yes, I make grammar and puncutation errors too. But I'm not in charge of the schools, am I?|W|P|114433591732143896|W|P|Once We Get this "English Language Learner" Thing Cleared Up, Maybe We Should Send the Superintendent's Webmaster for a Refresher|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/06/2006 08:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tasha|W|P|Wow, talk about setting the bar for standards.4/06/2006 09:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This could not possibly have been written by Horne. He has his J.D. with honors from Harvard Law and he was magna cum laude as an undergraduate!

Horne is indeed a Republican but please do not misuse the term conservative by associating it with Tom.4/06/2006 09:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Absolutely right, phx kid. There is no way that Horne would have written that himself.

These sorts of things are written by low level hacks who are given cushy government positions as a favor to a political benefactor.

So I'm thinking it's probably the work of a little Salmon or Weiers or a Bennett that doesn't have any upcoming court dates.4/06/2006 10:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Or whose court date was put on hold by a cushy settlement.4/06/2006 06:12:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A letter from Sen. Ron Gould to Gov. Janet Napolitano, courtesey Espresso Pundit:
Re: Illegal Alien March on April 10th Dear Governor Napolitano: I believe there is a cause for great concern regarding public safety during the upcoming protest march. The promoters of this event claim that over 100,000 demonstrators will be in attendance. They also claim that this will be a peaceful event, but we cannot go on the assumption that it will be peaceful. The marchers may be peaceful, but outside agitators could disrupt the event. If this happens, the march could very easily turn violent. With this in mind, I request that the Arizona National Guard be stationed in the area of the march. The presence of the Guard will have a stabilizing effect on the entire situation. In addition to stability, the guard would get real life experience in crowd control. I hope that you will give my request serious consideration. Sincerely, Senator Ron Gould
Yes, call out the National Guard. Stationing heavilly armed people along the protest route is the best way to send a message of peace and harmony. Such a policy has worked so well in the past. Does this call come from anyone in local law enforcement that thinks that they can't handle the situation? I didn't think so. This alarmism from Gould and other conservatives is not justified from our experience over the last few weeks with other marches here in Arizona. Of course, if the rhetoric you use equates immigrants and their supporters with criminals and terrorists, it would only be natural to think that any gathering will result in violence. Such a request has more to do with pandering to the fears of the xenophobes that support people like Gould and his colleagues than any concern about actual violence. I also have to wonder if the pleas to call out the Guard are motivated by people who are worried about the growing movement and want to intimidate the protestors. The anti-immigrant forces have had a free ride in the mainstream media, particularly local television. Here you have the other side asserting themselves and getting their point across. This just won't do, will it? NB - Anyone hear that Tom Horne is suggesting campus lockdowns during the protest? I don't think students should cut class either, but literally suggesting that gates on campus be "locked up" to keep students from expressing a political view is probably not the sort of civics lesson we want to give them.|W|P|114433157285535186|W|P|It Worked So Well at Kent State in 1970|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/06/2006 09:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|Maybe the National Guard could go out to Sen. Gould's house in Lake Havasu and make him take down the Confederate Flag he fly's. What country does he think he lives in anyway - I hate these people who fly the flags of foreign countries. Especially the flags of countries that attacked the United States!4/06/2006 09:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|LOL, insider!

Perhaps Gould wants the Guard called out to protect the marchers from the RW nut jobs who have been posting on the internet for the past few days, talking (joking?) about taking out protesters with snipers. He's probably just looking out for those poor ...

*sigh* who am i kidding?

Tedski, Horne is calling for a lockdown. It's front page news in the Republic.4/06/2006 10:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|What an idiot Horne is. He can lock all the schools up he wants just as sure as the Fire Chief will unlock the schools just as soon as they are locked. You cannot lock kids in any instance, its against fire code and the police have almost always sided with the Fire Chief over some lame politician who wants to score political points.4/06/2006 11:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|um, i don't believe a lockdown is meant quite that literally, tom. my understanding is that it prevents students down the campus, not literally locking kids into the buildings.

lockdowns occur quite frequently when there are emergency situations nearby. [e.g. hostage situation or fire in neighborhood]4/06/2006 11:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Horne's advice has been quoted in several places as asking schools to "lock the gates," quite different from the more metaphorical "lockdown."4/06/2006 07:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger SonoranDesertRat|W|P|Take a look at the L.A. march - 500,000 people and ZERO incidents. The police were just amazed at how peaceful it was. I don't think it's the marchers we have to worry about.4/07/2006 06:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|FYI - latest news is that chickensh*t state lawmakers are leaving early on Monday to avoid the march.

Nice to see representative democracy in action!4/07/2006 11:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|SonoranDesertRat hit this right on the nose.

Immigrants and their supporters are marching to protest the fact that they are not being treated as the productive and peaceful members of society that they are. It would make no sense for people trying to make this point to commit acts of violence.

If anything, any acts of violence would play right into the hands of Sen. Gould and others on the extreme right. They could then claim that these people are 'criminals.'

My guess is that they want to make that claim anyway, hence the call for the national guard, then they can claim that the guard's presence in and of itself was responsible for preventing violence.

But the Governor won't play into their hands. And I'm sure that the Phoenix police department will be on the scene and ready to arrest any agitators who try to provoke anything, and I bet if that happens and they arrest some, it will turn out that they are members of the Minutemen or the John Birch Society or some other loony tunes rightist group.4/05/2006 12:01:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Larry King announced tonight at a meeting of Democratic activists that he has decided against running for the Democratic nomination in CD 5. This clears the way for Harry Mitchell. King had earlier stated that he would drop out if Mitchell joined the race. Now that he doesn't have the primary to distract him, I guess Mitchell can actually work on his website.|W|P|114422115403563025|W|P|King Abdicates|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/05/2006 12:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Geo|W|P|I donated to King's campaign, and I still think his dropping out is a good thing.

First of all, he'd originally promised to do it if Mitchell ran. Then he seemed to flip on that promise when Mitchell declared. Now it seems as if the reality of his chances, or possibly the importance of keeping your word, has caught back up to him. I respect him a lot and wish him the best.

I know there has eben an undercurrent of some irritation among some of King's supporters because Mitchell declared. Some even railed at the DCCC getting involved and urging Mitchell to run, as if that were somehow inappropriate. Frankly, I'm glad to have the strongest candidate possible to unseat the bombastic demagogue Hayworth.

I appreciate King's dedication to the Dem cause and trust he will be campaigning hard for Mitchell this fall, as will I.4/05/2006 01:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|I'm quite surprised actually. I spoke to King about a week ago and he said that he was definitely staying in. Someone really put the pressure on, or promised him something nice...4/05/2006 04:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|Or he has been playing everyone ... just another option.4/05/2006 05:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|or he had a deal with mitchell...

just another option4/05/2006 08:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Be nice you two. He was really tore up at the meeting.4/05/2006 09:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|King for Chair4/06/2006 10:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Travis|W|P|That's got to be painful for Larry. He's a great guy, and he's been working on this campaign for nearly 2 years.

While I like the idea of him becoming the next chair, the ethical statndards governing members of the judiciary in Arizona would preclude that. Judges and judicial candidates are not allowed to hold party office.4/04/2006 07:05:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Remember, every little thing you do, we here at R-Cubed find out about it. We have a network of spies that would be the envy of the old East German Stasi. We are everywhere. For example, one of our agents spotted Rep. Ted Downing looking over some documents related to the procedures for the election of a State Party Chairman. Things that make you go hmmmm... I never really liked that song, or C + C Music Factory or Arsenio Hall for that matter. Anyhow, what is up with that? Come on, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is running, or even that he has recruited a friend to run. If there is anyone who would pour over that document for fun (besides a geek like me), it would be a former World Bank consultant like Downing, wouldn't it?|W|P|114420346170440359|W|P|Very Interesting|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/04/2006 10:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I think we can safely say that unlike with you Ted, there will be no Draft Ted Downing movement.

I would say other things but you would smack me for it.4/02/2006 06:01:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Okay, I don't actually know if it was 10,000. A buddy of mine said that he thought at the very least 5,000; but my brother claimed it was 10,000. If you really wanted to know, you should have been there. I hooked up with some folks from SEIU and walked with them. The line of folks at one point went from 12th Avenue and Veterans, west along the north side of Pueblo High School's Football Field, along the back of the bleachers, three quarters of the way along the track around the field, then all the way back deep into the campus. Quite a long, long line of people. This was all done in memory of César Chávez, and the procession was led by Raúl Grijalva and Dolores Huerta. They processed to Rudy Garcia Park where another rally was held. Each person was handed a small American flag, but many brought their own too. As much as ethnic pride is important (I saw Mexican flags and one Honduran flag, and I was wearing a Solidarność pin), I also think the message we should send is that we are Americans. The thing that concerns me most about the rhetoric thrown around on the right is that they claim that they are only concerned about illegal immigration, but they and their supporters seem to use it as an excuse to go after everyone, illegal aliens, legal immigrants, or that family named Sanchez down the street that has been here three or four generations. Reminding people that Latinos have been an important part of American culture for most of our country's history is a vital tool to counter the hatemongers. Most of the people marching were not immigrants, legal or otherwise, but were regular folks who were there to honor someone who stood up for the rights of working people. The local media seemed to ignore the whole thing. KOLD, for example, didn't see fit to cover thousands of people marching, but could go to a rally of 200 Minutemen. If you check the website, the Minutemen rally is given a prominent place, but you would be hard pressed to find anything about the march. The worshipful coverage that our local TV has given the Minutemen and their unquestioning repitition of even their most bizarre charges are some of the reasons I stopped watching local news entirely. I checked the other station's sites, nothing on any of those sites either. They covered the student walkouts, and were more than happy to take the time to find the most uninformed students, or in one case on KVOA, the group throwing gang signs, to feature. I suppose if the rally got ugly it would have had prominence on all the local stations. C. T. Revere of the Tucson Citizen was there, but the rally failed to rate a spot in the updates of local news on their site. Hopefully, we will see some coverage in both our local papers tommorrow. Ah...I always see the glass as half-empty. I'm cynical. All in all, it was a great event, and a wonderful way to remember César. NB - Michael Marizco has his take on media coverage of the Minutemen and last week's protests on his blog.|W|P|114402876502391837|W|P|March of the 10,000|W|P|prezelski@aol.com4/02/2006 07:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mexilina|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.4/02/2006 10:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mexilina|W|P|QUOTING YOU: Most of the people marching were not immigrants, legal or otherwise..

Actually, Tedski, from where I was walking, I saw it all: viejitas with tennis shoes, whole families, and young mothers pushing their babies in strollers. It was AMAZING! All races and colors were represented.

And, btw, immigrants ARE regular folks. (to quote you: "Sheesh!")4/03/2006 01:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Don't worry about the media.

That is why we now have the blogosphere. If the media wants to drone their way into irrelevance, well I guess more people will get more of their information from the internet. It is no longer possible for people who want to suppress a story, to completely suppress the story.4/03/2006 09:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Kyl 56
Pederson 334/03/2006 11:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger The Menudo Queen|W|P|Tucson Citizen coverage here:
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/8076.php