Geo|W|P|It's also not relevant, either.Janet demonstrably had public funds in her account that made her web site entirely legal.
Munsil demonstrably did not have the appropriate text on his web site, making his infraction clearly illegal.
So, yes: disqualify everyone who campaigns illegally. So far, that appears to be Munsil, only.
Much as I'm sure that reality upsets Republican partisans like phx kid. But as we all know, reality has a well-known liberal bias...
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Seed money can come from Janet herself you know. She can write herself a check...which I know everyone thinks would be weird but Janet DOES make enough annually to have the funds on hand.As for the registration of her campaign regarding state statutes:
16-903.A states that she would have to have her campaign committee registered before she spent any money. So for instanceif on March 1 she filed her statement of organization and the website was up on March 2 at 12:01 AM, she would be okay since she could spend money.
16-941.A.2 lets the Governor donate $1,000 towards her own campaign when filing clean as a state wide candidate. The website probably did not cost more then $1,000 for reservation of the domain, server space, and code written.
Eli Blake|W|P|kralmajalesDon't disqualify what might be the most extremist candidate I have seen in years for a major state-wide office
When exactly did Fife Symington last appear on the ballot anyway?
The scary thing about it is that extremists don't necessarily always lose.
And let's be honest here-- Republicans have nothing to run on against Janet. Their stale old 'tax cuts are the answer to every problem that has ever existed' rhetoric has about worn itself out, so lacking anything substantive, they have grabbed this as their last chance.
As far as the Munsil issue is concerned, I suspect that Ted's title pretty much sums it up; those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Tedski|W|P|Has George Soros given to Pederson? I was just trying to figure out why you keep bringing him up. Rex Scott|W|P|Pederson has my vote, but I will feel better about his prospects when he starts talking more about why to vote for him and not against Kyl. Realizing that part of any challenger's task is to drive up the incumbent's negatives, I still don't hear much about what "Senator Pederson's" values are and what his priorities would be. He has the same challenge Jon Corzine successfully confronted in New Jersey, which is coming across as more than simply a rich dilettante who wants a Senate seat to add to his trophies.Pederson also needs to be ready to take on one of the most relentless campaigners in this state in Jon Kyl. Simply tying Kyl to Bush or labelling him as to the left of McCain won't be enough to beat him. The case needs to be made that Kyl's voting record is antithetical to the interests of our state. That is harder to do after the TIME article lauding Kyl as one of the ten best senators in the country because he can make the case that such a distinction helps him to get us our fair share in the halls of power.
I think Pederson needs to dissect Kyl's voting record and show how his ultra-right record has hurt children, working and middle class families, the elderly, etc. This race can be won on domestic issues and reassuring the voters that Pederson has a backbone when it comes to terrorism and national security. Pederson has already shown balance on immigration and needs to come across consistently as caring, results-oriented and non-ideological in contrast to Kyl.
Geo|W|P|Pederson used his own money to seed the campaign to get an earlier start and build his name recognition.He went from being a virtual unknown outside of AZ to being the challenger in the 9th hottest senate race in the nation. I'd say it was money well spent.
Though, I know a lot of Republican partisans like phx kid wish it weren't so. But frankly, the cloying smell of desperation wafting off of his comment above is a heady aroma, indeed.
It smells like trouble for Kyl. :)
Tedski|W|P|Jeneiene -Check the name, I didn't make the comment.
Eli Blake|W|P|Rex Scott:Pederson has said what he is for.
He has made it clear that not only is he in favor of not doing things the way they have been done in Washington (for decades, in the case of Kyl), but his slogan 'He'll be nobody's Senator but ours' is a reminder that frankly he's too rich to be bought, and that is a good thing to be in this year of Abramoff and of Congressmen being investigated and sent to prison for outright bribery. He can say he will bring 'common sense' to Washington because he, unlike his opponent, will be able to walk into the Senate without chamber any IOU's in his briefcase.
He has made it clear that he is for working to make prescription drug prices affordable.
He put out a position statement on immigration that Jon Kyl essentially expropriated for his own ads after his own immigration bill failed in the Senate.
If you don't consider that Pederson is for anything, maybe it's because you haven't been paying enough attention to what he has said that he is for.
Daniel R. Patterson, Editor|W|P|Kyl has got to go. Not sure how good JP would be, but Kyl is bad for AZ and a disaster for the public-interest.
I've got a couple of not necessarily related, and possibly contradictory thoughts on the whole William Jefferson thing.
If these allegations turn out to be true, Jefferson should be thrown out of Congress and serve some serious time. This goes without saying, but I'm saying it anyway because some conservative wag who posts here will allege I'm excusing his behavior either because he's a Democrat, or African-American or maybe he's a Revs fan.
The snide, cynical bastard inside of me thinks this, however: at least this was bare, naked corruption. Vichi, as my Sonoran relatives say. He didn't ask for the donation to go to a PAC that pays his wife's six-figure salary. This wasn't money from gambling interests or Pacific Rim slave runners funnelled to a church. There was no wink and nod gift to a phony charity. This was old fashioned CREEP/Tamany Hall/Federal Ring style briefcase-full-of-money bribery. There is something twistedly honest about that.
I've been watching with great amusement the handwringing from Republican congressmen about the raid on Jefferson's office. Heck, Darrell Issa casually mentioned impeaching Alberto Gonzales over this. Where was this outrage when Gonzales claimed the right to wiretap any citizen without a warrant? I guess its a bit different when it looks like your office could be searched.
Hey, at least the FBI asked for a warrant for Jefferson's office.|W|P|114903753152620558|W|P|Some Thoughts On Rep. William Jefferson|W|P|prezelski@aol.com union guy|W|P|As a progressive Democrat, I think Nancy Pelosi should demand Jefferson's resignation. He had money stuffed in his freezer and is on tape taking the money. Democrats must demand that their members in Congress be above reproach. Jefferson should resign.
Craig|W|P|Yeah, there is something refreshingly old-fashioned about straight-up bribe solicitation and receiving. Having said that, if Rep. Jefferson is guilty every Dem (including me) should call for his ouster from office.Anything less from would be hypocritical given how loudly we have denounced Delay, Cunningham, Ney, and the Abramhoff gang.
We need to clean out all the dirty members of Congress, not just the dirty Repubs.
Expecting that all Dems in Congress be above reproach is a nice but unrealistic ideal; better to expect that we hold our own as accountable for their actions as we do the Reps.
Eli Blake|W|P|He does need to go.The problem with the FBI raid is that it erodes the whole separation of powers. The Constitution makes it very clear that the executive branch does not have primacy over the legislative branch. Hence Congress has its own rules and enforcement mechanisms. They have failed in the past (and I've made no bones about that) but it is still clearly the responsibility of Congress to police Congress.
That is not to say that congressmen are above the law. The FBI (an extension of the executive branch) can still investigate a congressman, and the $90 K (a whole new meaning to 'cold, hard cash') is valid evidence because his home is not where he conducts his official business. His office, in contrast, is. And they don't need it to get a conviction, they got Duke Cunningham and Dan Rostenkowski without searching their offices.
But ultimately if any part of the executive branch is given the authority to police Congress, then that moves us in the direction of a dictatorship (especially should someone truly evil and unscrupulous become President some day). And that is a much more dangerous to the future of the Republic than any single corrupt congressman. And I say that even though my own congressman joins Jefferson on the
"http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/renzi.php">'13 most ethically challenged congressmen' list (yes, I live in Richmond Ricky's district).
Eli Blake|W|P|Whoops, that links should be:13 most ethically challenged congressmen.
In honor of Memorial Day, instead of the usual snarky siliness of this blog, I invite you to read the stories of three Congressional Medal of Honor winners. Most of us, being Arizonans, know the tragic story of Corporal Ira Hayes, but it is always worth another look.
One you may not know is the story of Sgt. William Carney, the first African-American recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor. For some reason, his compelling story was ignored by the writers of the otherwise excellent movie Glory.
The third one is the story of Staff Sergeant Maynard "Snuffy" Smith. He was the first enlisted man in what was then known as the Army Air Force to be awarded the Medal of Honor. His story was first told by a young Stars and Stripes reporter by the name of Andy Rooney. Most of the time, we read about these heroes and its easy to forget that they are just normal folks called on to do remarkable things, Smith's often amusing story shows this. For those who don't know, Smith had to put out a fire on his bomber while it was in flight with, well, lets just say the only liquid available.|W|P|114891291210956245|W|P|Memorial Day|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Rob F|W|P|I admire Ira Hayes. His story is tragic and sobering. But I don't think he won the Medal of Honor. Sorry to quibble. And when, oh when, are we going to see a post about your own run for the legislature? Tedski|W|P|You're right. I must be one of many confused, since the webmasters that run the Medal of Honor site have a special page about him and begin it with the words, "Ira Hayes was an Iwo Jima Hero though not a recipient of the Medal of Honor"Oh well. The Medal of Honor page about Hayes is here:
http://www.medalofhonor.com/IraHayesMarine.htm
Tedski|W|P|Of course that's what I meant...I guess the Republicans all of a sudden like the Clean Elections Commission these days. Tedski|W|P|Actually Jeff...he did quote it right, then I fixed it to avoid further confusion.I've done this before, but I usually have noted it on the post. I neglected to do that this time. I will add a note.
Tedski|W|P|Bored-Before you get too happy, the alarmist messages from the PMA folks claiming a lack of signatures could be a way to motivate volunteers, that's a method they've used to organize in other states.
But if it's true...yeah, I'm all about that.
Tedski|W|P|Mayhap, but even so, shouldn't a 12 year incumbent running against someone so "inexperienced" beat him by more? Just curious. Rob F|W|P|I just think it's really interesting seeing Kyl on TV. When's the last time he even bothered to run? And seeing him suddenly spending time in AZ makes me chuckle. If a knucklehead like Pederson gives him this much trouble, imagine what a genuinely charismatic candidate would do to him. If I were a Republican, I wouldn't be quite so sanguine. GOPinsider|W|P|It will be interesting to see if Munsil has any coattails to help Montgomery gather his $5 contributions. A recent mailing from the Montgomery campaign contained a letter from Len Munsil asking recipients to send their $5 to Bill Montgomery.
Unfortunately, I don't know what list was used or if it will help.
Has anyone seen Jon Kyl's new ad? He's talking straight into the camera, giving us his take on the border. What is interesting about this is that it is free of the sort of alarmism that we have grown to expect from so many conservative politicians on this issue. He comes out against "amnesty," but says that "families should be given the opporitunity to gain legal status." Given that until a couple of weeks ago, many Republicans considered such a thing the same as amnesty, something must be turning on the issue.
Given the rather amorphous nature of his suggestions ("secure our borders and enforce our law" could mean anything, couldn't it?), it isn't that much different from what Jim Pederson, George Bush, Jim Kolbe or even Raúl Grijalva suggests, at least not on the surface. Of course, it is different from what Kyl himself had been presenting up until the president's speech.
One person that hasn't bought into the "kinder and gentler" "compassionate conservative" line on this one is (you all already know who I am going to name, don't you?) J. D. Hayworth. A press release on his website posted on Thursday trashes the president's plan. I take it that Bush won't be visiting Scottsdale this year.|W|P|114874398173421495|W|P|Have the Terms of the Discussion Changed?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Geo|W|P|Many of us have been expecting this kind of flip-flop from Kyl for weeks now.He's no fool. He can see that his draconian, xenophobic, deport-em-all rhetoric was costing him voters. And with the constructive, comprehensive solutions coming from his opponent Jim Pederson, and backed up by Napolitano, Bush, McCain, Kennedy and now the vote of the Senate, Kyl and the rest of the radical rightwing are forced to come to grips with the truth: they clearly outside of the mainstream and their obstructionism has been part of the problem all along.
So Kyl either has to soften his stance and pretend he's a kinder, gentler extremist or be ridden out on a rail in November.
Hayworth still thinks he doesn't have to do this triangulation, because of the huge Republican voter registration advantage in AZ-5. But I predict that we'll see him either get softer on the issue to try to woo the moderates, Indies and conservative Dems that he's clearly run off with his bombastic tuff-talkin' non-solutions, OR we'll see him getting even MORE strident, trying to whip up even more destructive and self-serving frenzy from his xenophobic base.
I think a lot of folks are beginning to realize that Arizona will be greatly served when both of these members of the incompetent and corrupt Republican apparatus are given their pink slips in November.
It's time for the mainstream to be represented in Arizona, again, and for the grown-ups to once more be in control of the government.
Tony GOPrano|W|P|You DemoRats crack me up!!! You think you can buy a US Senate seat in Arizona? Your all delusional, dream on....Gonna be fun to watch "your" guv, Jack Napolitano get grilled by the Clean Elections Commission. Senator Kyl will continue to be the Junior Senator from Arizona...FERGEITABOUTIT!!! Tedski|W|P|Funny...I was talking about Kyl's new ad...and you went right back to the popular Republican talking point about Pederson "buying" the seat.So, Republicans don't like money in politics now? Will you be more supportive of Clean Elections now?
I guess we have ourselves a trend. You may remember that last week a letter anonymously went out from a couple of brave souls trashing Councilmember José Ibarra. This week, some other group of oh so brave souls are trashing Senator Gabrielle Giffords.
Oh, but they aren't anonymous...they have a name, "Real Democrats for Real Democrats."
See, their premise is that Gabrielle Giffords isn't a "Real Democrat." Their evidence is that Giffords was registered as a Republican back when she lived in New York. Never mind that she wasn't an active Republican, and not even a very good one if her views then resemble her votes as a state legislator.
Question for you: does this mean that Republicans who leave the party to join the Democrats are not welcome in our party now? Slade Mead, go home!
The challenge I have issued to supporters of other candidates when they say this is to find a vote where she sold out Democratic issues. To date, none of them have been able to find one. Why would so many progressive people and groups support her if she ever did? Are they all ignorant?
These folks dug in to her record and found her "sell-out" vote, and I was shocked.
She voted for a resolution creating a day honoring Ronald Reagan.
Is that the best you can do?
By the way, Democrats Victor Soltero, Harry Mitchell and Albert Hale voted for the resolution as well. Sell-outs one and all, right?
(Marsha Arzberger voted for it too, she does tend to be a conservative Democrat though. I wouldn't recommend sending out anonymous letters about her, she packs. And her husband could still kick your ass no matter how old he is now.)
(And another "by the way," Ken Cheuvront voted against it, and most progressive activists can't stand him. My point is that this isn't much of a litmus test, is it?)
Once again, they dig up the phony issue about Giffords's choice of campaign chairs. Giffords's original chairs were Dorothy Finley and Eddie Basha. When she first picked Basha, I heard grousing that he was anti-labor. Then, she dropped Basha. The complaint was then that she was selling out to that gawdawful special interest, organized labor.
I have heard these complaints from the exact same people. Heck, the letter has both complaints in it. Is she anti-labor, or is she too pro-labor? Make up your minds.
By the way, if she is anti-labor, why have so many unions thrown in with her? I know, I know, weak-kneed sell outs, right? Given that she's been endorsed by the teamsters, the machinists and the carpenters, I wouldn't recommend saying that to their face.
By the way, her Republican support is supposed to be evidence that she's not a good Democrat, so does the number of progressive supporters make her progressive? Why not?
They also go after Dorothy Finley. Yes, Finley is a Republican. Yes, she gives money to Republicans, but she also gives money to Democrats. She gave money to Paul Babbitt, which hardly anyone did. She also gave money to Raúl Grijalva, another sell-out for sure, right? She also gave money to my brother's last campaign, when many supposedly "good" Democratic donors wouldn't even return his phone calls. If you wish to call my brother a crypto-Republican sell-out, I suggest we take it up in person.
But, of course, you chose not to take it up in person, did you?
Here's what galls me the most about the letter: the complaint that many progressive activists have with our elected officials is that they cringe too much, that they don't seem to have the courage of their convictions to stand up for our values against big conservative money or conservative sniping in the media. You are right, and I share that frustration. How does one argue this point, but send out an anonymous hit on someone?
I have my doubts that a campaign sent this out. It seems more likely that this is the supporter of one of the other candidates who thinks that this will actually be helpful. You aren't helping. If it was sent by a campaign, it is highly unethical and, frankly, illegal.
Is this the sort of thing we are going to be treated to over the next few months?
NB - I haven't gotten a chance to put this up, but it seems related. A few months back, I spoke to a supporter of Patty Weiss, who told me that Giffords was not "progressive" enough. I told him, but she's got a record that is very progressive. Then he said, that is the problem, because the Republicans are going to rip her up for that, and it's better to nominate someone with no record. So, she's not progressive enough, but her progressiveness is a problem. Hrm.|W|P|114859990178191251|W|P|I Don't Know Albert, We Don't Know Anyone Named Ann Onymous|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Tedski|W|P|I'll do better than that, here is the link.I never trashed Verkamp for being a party switcher, but some of my readers did.
union guy|W|P|Gabby's opponents:- "yeah gabby votes the right way, that's the problem"
- "yeah gabby has raised more money, that's the problem."
- "yeah gabby has more endorsements, that's the problem."
- "yeah gabby appeals to both democrats and republicans, that's the problem."
grannuaile|W|P|It really is amazing. Democrats should be ecstatic to have a progressive (pro-environment, pro-gay, pro-education, pro-union, and pro-choice) candidate who manages to stand up for all of those values and still gain the support of the business community. No, far better to trash that candidate as being too.. no, wait, not enough... or, what we mean is she used to be a... well, no, not recently but, um...Seriously.
Rex Scott|W|P|As a former Republican AND a proud Giffords supporter, I encourage my fellow Democrats to welcome our redemption...and not blast us for the original sin.Primaries allow parties to better define themselves while also sorting out the question of who should carry the party standard into November. However, the "more Democrat than thou" rhetoric spewing forth from some of the anti-Gabby folks is both condescending and self-defeating. It serves no purpose but to bring smiles to Republican faces.
I'm planning to vote Giffords in September and vote Democrat in November. I hope Gabby is our nominee, but if she isn't, I want to support a strong nominee who isn't scarred from an ugly primary replete with fabrications, anonymous cheap shots and endless refernces to boogeymen in either the DLC or the corner Basha's grocery.
If this nonsense is coming from the Latas or the Weiss camp, they should grow up, shut their mouths and repeat the two words that ought to frighten and unify us-CONGRESSMAN GRAF!
Geo|W|P|I appreciate what you folks are saying, and especially what Mr. T and Rex commented.After being a life-long Republican, then having a few years of serious and growing concerns, I finally switched to the Democratic party in late March.
Let's just say that my "welcome into the fold" hasn't been inordinately enthusiastic.
I find I'm at least AS informed about the issues, and FAR more knowledgeable about the "opposition", than most of the other Dems I talk to. I'm voting Dem, championing Dem and have been pretty vocal about my affiliation in various online forums. At times, it seems I'm the only Dem in Arizona willing to wade into the swamp of AZ Republic's "Plugged In" on any given issue.
I'd love to get more involved and help out. But there does seem to be something of a reluctance, though, which I guess is understandable.
Maybe after a few more months, or maybe a few more elections, of proving myself, I can be "one of us".
Patience, grasshopper. :)
Geo|W|P|Oh, and I support Giffords. x4mr|W|P|Sierra Club voted her Most Valuable Player of the Year. Go to their website yourself where you can see the ratings of elected officials. She got A+ while Huffman got a D.I have posted elsewhere about facts vs. bizarre assertions. I chased one allegation (Walmart supports her) to a Phx consultant who "possibly helped Walmart" and donated $300 to Giffords campaign last December. Please!
The refinery thing is also over at kos but I can't get facts about that either (George?), and now something about nukes??
So, I either see falsehoods (Walmart supports her) or facts that don't matter, at least to me (Finley is a republican and supports republicans). Haven't seen the letter yet, but sounds like a lot of the latter.
Finally, consider that those "Real Democrats" are not democrats at all. R's care about this primary, and have heard they will be involved (although did not hear how).
Know at least one that said the big R's fear Giffords the most, for simple reasons like $$, endorsements, volunteers, and what doesn't get mentioned too often, the quality of her staff.
union guy|W|P|George,First it's the unions don't know what they're doing...
Now it's the Sierra Club doesn't know what it's doing...
How many progressive endorsements will it take to convince you that Gabby is beloved by almost all of the progressive organizations?
union guy|W|P|boohoo,Actions speak louder then words.
Gabby has a 100% League of Conservation Voters record.
Gabby has an A+ voting record with the Sierra Club.
Gabby has a perfect labor voting record.
She is a progressive, she has demonstrated it for years.
And she appeals to Republicans.
The DCCC couldn't have manufactured a better candidate.
Naysayers don't build a movement.
Eli Blake|W|P|Ted:To clarify your 16:49 post, I didn't jump on Verkamp for being a former Republican, I jumped on him for remaining loyal to them even when it meant he had to give up on retaining his Senate seat, and suddenly having an apparently radical shift. I questioned his sincerity, and I still question it. Mead has clearly made the transition, after being publically 'helped' out the door by the GOP in a legislative primary.
Tedski|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. Tedski|W|P|Well...there you have it, we are all idjits and the candidates all suck (Latas doesn't suck so much because he has a hybrid.) Why do you even bother posting, then? Tedski|W|P|This is not a "Gabby supported site," it is a site that supports Gabrielle Giffords. Despite what has been alleged, I am not paid by the Giffords campaign. I realize that it is hard for some supporters of other candidates to believe that anyone would support someone they don't like without being bribed.Also, the name "Gabby" is reserved for friends of hers. It's Gabrielle to you, pal.
Craig|W|P|Hate to bring a note of cynicism to the party (so unusual for me, really :) ), but we should start a pool, hell, a couple of them, on how long they actually spend in prison (not their sentences, actual time served) and what date their Presidential Pardons become official.Personally, I'm guessing sometime in the week after the general election in November 2008. With net time served at less than a year after the appeals process.
union guy|W|P|Leo Corbet, a Republican who was president of the Arizona Senate and a former Republican candidate for Arizona Governor, is holding a fundraiser for Harry Mitchell tonight as well. Eli Blake|W|P|Hayworth used to be the congressman from up here, until we got our own district and Richmond Ricky.The problem with Hayworth (even for Republicans) is, if you need a rhetorical bomb thrown, he's great, but as far as actually being a guy who solves problems (and isn't this what Congress is supposed to do?) he's a zero. I mean, Congress' business is to legislate, but look at the legislation he's pushed-- a resolution giving a choice of 'withdraw from Iraq by dropping your guns and running' or 'shut-up and support the war,' or making illegals felons. Not the sort of stuff designed to produce a consensus, just more of a partisan divide.
When the biggest problems facing the country were what Monica did with the cigar, maybe Republicans could tolerate a blowhard like this, but living in an age when we are faced with problems that threaten the future of the Republic (and whatever your stands are on issues like Iraq, how to pursue the war on terrorism, health care costs increasing at a double digit rate, rebuilding New Orleans and the Mississippi coast, and protecting against future catastrophes of this magnitude, skyrocketing oil prices, immigration and the border, the deficit and in particular why the Chinese are buying so much of it, nuclear proliferation and similar issues) this is the time for reasoned and rational debate designed to produce a consensus that most of America can support as a national policy, and as we well know, that isn't J.D.'s strong suit.
Tedski|W|P|I never said Mitchell was a saint...I just said I'd like him to replace Hayworth. Although, I suppose I should wait until someone absolutely ideologically pure comes along before we replace him. grannuaile|W|P|Harry Mitchell has consistantly scored 100% on the Arizona League of Conservation Voters scorecard, and was one of only 3 senators last year to do so. Likewise, he was one of only 3 senators to score an A+ on the Sierra Club's 2005 Scorecard. It's actually funny that this is coming up today given that just last night, at an AZLCV event, Harry was recognized for his years of work on behalf of Arizona's natural resources.Those environmental groups and their fawning praise!
Craig|W|P|"I'm not too comfortable with Gammage. Time and time again, he has come out for big time developers against conservation and neighborhood interests."Nothing has changed - Gammage is fronting a movement to give Papago Park in Phoenix and Tempe to developers to put condos, houses and commercial buildings on.
Opposing viewpoints (and the 2nd is Gammage's)
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=64185
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0430gammage0430.html
I posted back in February that there was a rumor that David Petersen would resign from office. This led to his son Paul Petersen posting here and writing to me to tell me that his father would never, never resign. He also told me I was irrelevant, which made me wonder why he chose to respond to my comments at all.
Well, I suppose that Paul was correct and I was wrong. Petersen hasn't resigned.
Instead, he has chosen not to show up to work.
He's still drawing a salary, of course.
NB - The Arizona Democratic Party has a special contest related to Petersen.|W|P|114847828120499555|W|P|I Was Wrong About David Petersen|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Tedski|W|P|Um...so Democrats don't deserve to win the senate because there is a corrupt Republican elected official with nearly the same name? Eli Blake|W|P|I wonder how he would react if Martin Bacal asked him for a contact list of militia members? Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|no that was me Bored...I thought it would be something fun to do with Republicans.
Wheeler served on the City Council here for many years, and I helped him out with his last run for that office back in 1991. Interestingly, he first was elected to that office with a little help from Mo Udall's operation, who were bitter because of the imcumbent councilman's support for Mo's primary opponent, Luis Gonzales. Yes, sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but Mo could play the revenge game as well as anyone. It was the fact that he could do it with a smile is one of the reasons we miss him.
One of Wheeler's more infamous (not bad, just infamous) acts while on the council was cutting down the fence at Kennedy Park during a Cinco de Mayo festival. Organizers took a piece of a public park, fenced it off, and charged people for entering, a clear violation of policy established by the council. When city staff took no action, Wheeler got a pair of bolt cutters and took care of it himself.
Wheeler was also part of a crew called the "Tucson Crazies," a group of liberal (that was the word in those days) legislators from Tucson the included Morris Farr and Sister Claire Dunn that caused no end of trouble for the folks in Phoenix back in the late 1970's. Those were the days.
He said he had trouble establishing ID in Phoenix. Well, does anyone know who the heck Israel Torres is either? I wonder if the real reason was his lack of strong name ID down here, where he had not been involved in public life since a quixotic bid for mayor in 1995.
I always found Mark Thompson to be a cypher, yet another cookie cutter self righteous Maricopa County conservative, easily replaceable, like those hierlings in James Bond movies. Well, he was taller and balder than most, with one of those builds one aquires from too many hours at a gym rather than actual sports or physical labor. I only comment on this because no one I talk to can name anything he got done when he had been in the legislature before. He came in fourth place, as an incumbent, the last time he ran. His supporters still claim that now-Sen. Edward Ablesser cheated, but had he beaten Ablesser, he still would have come in third. His troubles with his campaign are detailed here (Mr. T has more to say, since he actually lives in the district), but also that formerly Republican district is rapidly becoming Democratic. He can't be too happy to run in a place like that.
NB - In their continuing quest to pretend that there is no election coming up, there is nothing in this morning's Star about Bruce Wheeler, at least not in the on-line edition.|W|P|114814544170203934|W|P|Great, Two Fewer Candidates for Me to Poke Fun At|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I gave that dude five bucks...hmmm. GOPinsider|W|P|Gee - maybe Wheeler's decision to drop out had something to do with the fact that the GOP would be able to run ads using tapes of the 911 calls made by Kristin Smith and highlighting his drinking and domestic issues. Eli Blake|W|P|I really regret Wheeler leaving the race. His speech at the party meeting a couple of months ago was very good, I really felt that he had more than a desire to serve, he actually had a plan for what he would do if he got elected.It does clear the deck for Torres though, hopefully he will be able to mount a credible challenge to Jan Brewer (and we do have a wildcard that could affect that race-- it remains to be seen how many voters get turned away at the polls on primary day (Sept. 12) in accordance with Brewer's rules, but they are her rules and if a lot of people, who may for example have moved since they registered to vote are turned away during the primary and we can get them to vote in the general, they may be angry enough to take it out in that race. This is the kind of 'wildcard' that is more likely to be a zero than a jackpot, but it's a complete unknown at this point so it's worth taking the time to remind everyone ahead of the primary that the new voter I.D. requirements were written according to Jan Brewer's interpretation.
In the last couple of days Mike Hellon has debuted a new ad where he touts his expierence as Ronald Reagan's Arizona mahout (a tough political assignment, I'm sure) and declaring himself a tough-guy on border issues. This is may mean he has given up on his scuffle with Steve Huffman over moderate Republican voters.
A few months back, there were allegations that Hellon's ex-wife, Sen. Toni Hellon, tried to torpedo the Rio Nuevo-TIF bill, since it was Rep. Huffman's baby and this would somehow knock the legs out from his campaign. Yeah, don't ask me how exactly this was supposed to have worked. I doubt there are many voters whose votes are hinging on whether Huffman can pass tax increment financing. The fact that you are asking me what the heck "tax increment financing" is makes my point.
But, many moderate Republican contributors and movers are in the business community (shock!) and do care about this issue and have reservations about Sen. Hellon's tactics. They have taken it out on both Hellons by backing Huffman. This has left the pro-choice and relatively moderate Hellon with little support among the group of Republicans that he was counting on in this primary.
So, it looks like Hellon is left to make feints toward the dexter side of his party. He can't out do Randy Graf on immigration though, and I have doubts that he even would want to. Graf seems to have the conservative votes sewn up, and I wouldn't be suprised if he went after moderate voters over the next few months.
Also, how sincere are the "values" Republicans going to think he is about this anyway? He lost his position in the state Republican Party two years ago because of his and his ex-wife's social views. It is unlikely that rhetorical moves in the more conservative direction will excite the activists enough to get him their support.
I guess this gambit would work, a majority of neither group but enough for a narrow 38% or 39% victory, but Huffman and Graf are so strong right now. The more likely scenario would be that more Republican leaders pressure Hellon to get the heck out.|W|P|114814318223181525|W|P|Mike Hellon's New Ad|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|fascinating.
I hadn't commented on Bush's Monday immigration speech. I could come up with some convuluted explanation like I wanted it to sink in or something. Naw. Just laziness, what can I say?
As much as I hate to give him credit, I want to give him a few props for the tone of the speech. Even though I am doubtful about some of his proposals, he avoided the nasty rhetoric that many in his party have used in this debate. I wish he would have stepped up a few months ago and use his position to keep the debate rational.
I'm not comfortable with using the National Guard. I have concerns about militarization (although the fact that they will not actually be on patrol sits a bit better with me), but also I share the concerns of governors like Ted Kulongoski and Arnold Schwarzenegger about overstretched guard units, especially since this looks to be a bad fire season in the Western states. By the way, wasn't this whole National Guard idea pooh-poohed by the administration when Janet Napolitano and Bill Richardson suggested it?
Does the technology exist yet for a reliable and cheap "biometric ID card"? A minor point, to be sure, but I have already heard interviews with a few experts who have said that we may not know how to make them yet.
The rest of his plan will involve a great deal of legislative arm-twisting. Although the knock from many on my side against Bush is that he is an "imperial president," when he comes to domestic issues, he has prefered to let congress take the lead. The President had largely (at least in public) stepped back from this issue except for a few speeches, so people like James Sensenbrenner felt they had the green light from the White House for hard line immigration measures. To pass his guest worker measures, the President is going to have to stand up to many on the right wing of his own party. If he wouldn't stand up to them for one of his best friends (Harriet Meiers), who is to say he'll put up any fight on this one?
He will lose a lot of Republicans on the issue, and may need to actually talk to Democrats. Imagine that!
I also wonder what sort of stink bomb this throws into our local Republican primaries. Although the entire Republican congressional delegation signed letters opposing "Protect Arizona Now," many of them, particularly J. D. Hayworth and Jon Kyl, have now been painting themselves as pro-enforcement and anti-guest worker. (By the way, when will someone ask Hayworth why he opposed PAN, but now criticizes Napolitano for supposedly not enforcing it?) This now puts them in a position of running against the President. I would venture to say that Jim Pederson is now closer to the President on this issue than Kyl is.
Randy Graf has his reaction on his site. Graf, some of you may remember, hung a picture of the President upside down in his office when he came out for a guest worker program two years ago. He criticizes the president's proposal for not going far enough, complete with a tortured baseball metaphor (isn't he a golfer?).
He also points out that the Republican congress hasn't fully funded the 9-11 Commission, or even the President's, targets for hiring new Border Patrol agents. This is a valid criticism, and can be laid at the foot of the President, for not pushing congress on this issue, but mostly the Republican leadership in congress for not fully funding even the President's requests. I know, there were were probably some giveaways to the pharmaceutical industry or bridges to Alaskan hamlets that were far more important.
One last thing: was the dune buggy picture a good idea? Or is it Mike Dukakis in the tank?|W|P|114804775828694928|W|P|The Good Yuma Man He Sees Everything Like This|W|P|prezelski@aol.com eckeric|W|P|One last thing: was the dune buggy picture a good idea? Or is it Mike Dukakis in the tank?The first thing I thought was:
Bush: Oh no, Speed Buggy, we are late for our photo op!
Speed Buggy: Vrooma-zoom-zoooom!!
union guy|W|P|According to polls done right after the speech, more people are now supporting the President's immigration policy then before, but 71% of the increased support is coming from people who believe immigrants should have a path to citizenship. The conservatives aren't budging. Tedski|W|P|Jeneiene- I realize that maybe this doesn't fit into your whole "all you Democrats are weakneed sell outs" meme, but I never said I supported the ID card, and I don't support the ID card. I also never said I supported all of Bush's plan. Or any of it, for that matter. union guy|W|P|I do support some of Bush's plan. His plan includes a path to citizenship for the 12 million hard working people that are already here who fear everyday that their families will be ripped apart. His plan includes a guest worker program so people can come here legally (which every immigrant I've talked to in recent weeks would much prefer if it was a real option).I don't support a wall or more troops on the border. But if you polled the 12 million workers that are already here and the millions more that want to come here and asked them if they were willing to have a wall and more troops on the border in exchange for a path to citizenship and a legal way for people to come here and work, I'm positive they would allow the wall to be buildt and troops to be put on the border.
union guy|W|P|As progressives, how do we tell 12 million hard working immigrants that we had a chance to keep you together with your families in the country that you wanted to live in, but we chose not to do it because we thought the wall was too expensive? union guy|W|P|Kralmajales,Immigrants already worry about it, because it happens all the time. Just a few weeks ago 35 families in Phoenix, and 500 nationwide, were broken apart by ICE when they had family members arrested and deported. It happens everyday. Immigrants need a path to citizenship and legalization now. Simultaneous mass deportation might not happen, but our current immigration laws create broken families all the time and, as progressives, we need to work to find a solution.
Secondly, it's very interesting, if we're going to go out there and recruit people to go down and assist the Border Patrol through volunteerism and you'll get quite a few of them. These will be people who are unemployed or underemployed, as I mentioned before. The large proportion of those people are not European white people. They're going to be—they're going to be, many of them, immigrants themselves, they'll be people of color and so on, and so out of proportion to their numbers in the National Guard, you're going to have Hispanic-Americans and black-Americans on the border and that may cause a problem. The good news is we're probably not going to give them guns, they're only going to be an—in administrative jobs and they‘re not going to be face-to-face with the illegal immigrants.So, Col. Jacobs, what exactly do you mean by this? Are we "safer" if we only issue guns to white folks? Are blacks and Hispanics less loyal, less patriotic and less likely to follow orders? Shh...don't tell Col. Jacobs how many Hispanics are already in the Border Patrol. And they are issued guns too. |W|P|114795783900078595|W|P|Olbermann on Monday|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|According to Molly Ivins, the military has done more for peacefully improving race relations then anything else.But it did not help with this guy.
Tedski|W|P|Well, the Alabama Democratic party is unfortunately, still has a significant number of racists. Not a big suprise. There are counties there where no matter what your views, you register Democrat or there is no chance for you to vote for the sheriff. Ask the guy who he voted for last time for president...I'm willing to bet that he didn't vote straight ticket on that one.I know the State Chairman there, and he is not exactly happy that this guy is running as a Democrat. By the way, the Republicans had a Senate candidate out there a few years ago who said that the abolition of slavery contradicted the Bible.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The internet is weird. I found this while trying to locate a website regarding the temporarily implemented student tracking program created in the late 90s. It looks at people's bias regarding immigration. Pretty interesting.
Eli Blake|W|P|Something else that is insulting-- the idea that the only reason why they expect to meet their goal is because they can find enough people to volunteer (means you don't get paid) who are unemployed or underemployed.I guess he is worrying up front that they won't find enough volunteers who consider a call to volunteer on behalf of their country to be worth anything at all.
Just an observation, I can see why the whole race issue is insulting, but even if you took the racial part out of it, the comment he made would still be insulting.
As for the racist in Alabama, yeah, they are all over down there. I've been there. Segregation was only really broken about a generation ago (and in some places, the ghosts of segregation are still a bit more than ghosts), and there are still plenty of people there who wish it would come back. But don't blame it on the Democrats-- the real reason why the Republicans have taken over Congress is that the solidly conservative Democratic south has become the solidly conservative Republican south. Attitudes haven't changed, just party affiliation in regard to high office (Senate, Congress, Governor and President). This has allowed the Republicans to gain the upper hand despite the fact that states that used to be Republican bastions (such as Vermont, New Jersey, Illinois and California) have moved to the Democrats. Interestingly enough, of the 20 states that Al Gore won when he lost the close 2000 Presidential election, twelve of them were carried by Republican Gerald Ford when he lost the close 1976 election. So much of the nation has actually become more Democratic, but the south has made the difference here, being an entire region that has changed parties, as opposed to individual or small groups of states.
Tedski|W|P|Morg-Come on! The most ridiculous moment, for me, of the last Republican convention was when Rod Paige blamed "segregationist Democrats" for all the problems in the black community, when his own party has counted on those formerly segregationist Democrats becoming Republicans so that they can carry the South. Yes, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and Trent Lott started as segregationist Democrats, but what did they later become?
Tedski|W|P|Yeah...Byrd was in the Klan 60 years ago, in the mean time, Lott and George Allen still have ties to segregationist and pro-confederate organizations. This is the silliest sort of straw-man argument. You can do better than this, Morg.The scorched earth campaigns against the previous two transportation questions had poisoned the waters against any transportation plan for the forseeable future.My take now:
People were tired of the arguments about transportation in our community and were desperate for a solution that incorporated elements from both sides of the debate.|W|P|114792593941569577|W|P|Yesterday's Results|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P| video I think. The two of us have worked for the City for almost 30 years. We have seen them all come an [sic] go. We have watched Mr. Ibarra for years. We used to laugh at his immaturity. Now we are offended by his irresponsibility. That is why we felt the strong need to send this statement.They felt a "strong need" to send the statement, but they apparently didn't feel the "strong need" to sign it. If you want to make charges like this, stand behind them. If you lack the cajones to do so, don't waste the postage.|W|P|114787887599460485|W|P|Such Bravery!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Eli Blake|W|P|Hint #2: This is someone who has or can obtain a list of Democratic activists, including their addresses.I agree with you though, these sorts of anonymous 'hit' pieces should have no place in politics.
It smacks of Nixonian dirty tricksterism.
Tedski|W|P|I don't worry, since I hear the governor is eager to veto this unprovoked assault on Arizona's working families. Tedski|W|P|And, I have passed something...why, I helped author and pass the city's regulations on a-frame and portable signs. Tedski|W|P|Go Kid, hit him where it hurts. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Kudos to you Tom, would you like a cookie or some other baked good? Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|But of course Ted's achivement is far far greater in magnitude, he gets free tickets to a concert of his choice. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Why do we have to be on topic?
I have no idea what Minuteman Chris Simcox's military experience is. He must have enough that he feels he can criticize the national guard as "trained desk jockeys," as he did this morning on KUAZ. He said that he thought these "desk jockeys" can't handle the "dangerous" situation on our border.
I'd like for Simcox to tell the families of Spc. Jeremiah W. Robinson, Sgt. Howard Allen, Spc. James Holmes and Sgt. Elijah Tai Wah Wong, all Arizona Guardsmen who died in Iraq, that they were just poorly trained desk jockeys that couldn't handle danger.
What a total ass.|W|P|114782610270473815|W|P|Chris Simcox Disses National Guardsmen|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Unfortunately a lot of people think little of the National Guard when they have been doing a really good job in Afghanistan and Iraq without everything they need.I am not surprised that this guy said that though...he seems to be a few bricks shy of a full load.
Michael Bryan|W|P|I'm simply delighted by Simcox's comments. The Far Right is pulling out the stops to discredit Bush's attempt at framing a compromise.This is one of the few, but increasingly frequent times when we get to watch the GOP coalition beat on each other and embarrass themselves in the process.
Tedski|W|P|Yeah...Ray Warden makes Simcox look like Mathatma Ghandi.What the heck prompted that?
Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, if Simcox really feels that way, why not suggest that he and the 'minutemen' volunteer to replace a guard unit full of 'desk jockeys' on patrols in Anbar province?It all defends on how you pronounce 'minutemen.'
Accent the first syllable:
minute: sixty seconds.
Accent the second syllable and draw out the vowels:
minute: very small.
In Spanish, you could make this much more clear.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Eli! Hahahahaha.And now I want to go to the next Tempe City Council meeting to see what happens. Especially with the Barb Carter controversy.
Caller from Arkansas: For someone to take -- to hold an office and take the oath of that office, and then refuse to uphold the laws of this nation, to me you ought to be tried for treason and hanged. Host: Thank you, caller. Congressman? Rep. Raúl Grijalva: I don't know how -- well, if well it's a reaction to that, I'd prefer not to be hanged.I'd like to point out to Raúl that the proper word would be the participle "hung."|W|P|114782491194031959|W|P|Great, Next He'll Sing That Marty Robbins Song|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Picky picky! Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Bored, everyone reads this blog...Even people outside of AZ. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I was at the Dentist today, does that count? Tedski|W|P|Roger-The CAVE piece was out of line. It probably would have been better directed at the people against 3 & 4 than those who have some valid concerns on 1 & 2.
Ted.
union guy|W|P|For those of you that are still up on the air on 3 & 4 (not that there will be many on this blog), SEIU Arizona, which has more than 2000 supporters among Pima County Employees, overwhelmingly endorsed 3 & 4. Pima County Employees, from the health care fields to the courts to our detention officers, strongly believe that the therapeutic approach is key to aiding people in need, reducing crime, and streamlining County Government.Please vote yes on #3 and #4.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|*keeps quiet about her vote for the same ol' same ol'.*Jim Pederson was Democrat Party Chairman. He contributed millions of his personal money to elect liberal candidates and support liberal causes. Liberals like, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, [and] John Kerry.I thought this was odd, since when Howard Dean ran for President, Pederson was State Democratic Party Chairman. It would have been unusual, and big news, if Pederson had supported a candidate in the highly contested Democratic presidential primary in 2004. (As an aside, a knock that many of Pederson's supporters had against his predecessor Mark Fleischer was that he broke this unwritten rule and actively supported Bill Bradley in the 2000 presidential race.) Well, as it turns out, he did not. In fact, he gave no money to the candidates listed in the ad. You don't even have to believe me, you can check his contributions on Open Secrets. On there, I found out that Pederson gave money to Elaine Richardson's 2002 congressional race. This ticks me off because I supported Raúl Grijalva that year. He also gave to the Young Democrats of America, an organization so dangerously radical that they once had me on their executive board. Of course, Kyl's ad weasel-words this claim by saying "liberals like..." so he isn't saying Pederson gave the money to them, but only, to paraphrase Miracle Max, mostly did. I'm sure that their argument would be that by bankrolling party activities, Pederson helped these candidates out. Except in the case of Kerry, this is a pretty far stretch, since neither Kennedy or Clinton ran for election in the two cycles where the party benefitted his largesse. (Even if Pederson did give to Clinton, this would make him no more liberal than Rupert Murdoch) Interestingly, prior to becoming party chairman, Pederson funded the "Fair District" initiative which ended up solidifying our gerrymandered hard right majority in the legislature, and the "Clean Elections" initiative, which made the activist-conservative candidacy of Len Munsil possible. You'd think they'd be more grateful.|W|P|114773123649649705|W|P|Pederson Retroactively Endorses Dean for President, I Guess|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Eli Blake|W|P|I figured there'd be an ad out like this some months ago when I got a call from a so-called 'pollster' who clicked off the names on that list asking for my opinion of them, then asked me a bunch of 'would you be more or less likely to vote for Pederson if you knew...' followed by a whole bunch of personal attacks (at least a couple of which I knew personally to be either lies or very distorted). So I knew then that was the kind of campaign that Jon Kyl planned to run, and I'm not a bit surprised to hear it on ads today.Obvious, getting re-elected is more important to Jon Kyl than telling the truth.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|One would think that a Democratic State Party chair would give to Democratic candidates.And I am pretty sure the "independent" part comes from not having a ton of corporate sponsers. But I would have to look up the FEC reports Pederson has filed to be sure.
But I bet my FEC reports are much cleaner. :D
Touchdown|W|P|He has obviously backed liberal Democrats [Emily's List, pro-abortion that was a pass-through to Boxer]. In Pederson's own commericals he calls himself an independant and says nowhere that he is a Democrat. That is why Kyl is just pointing out that is not the case. JP gave lots of money to the libs (that is OK)...he shouldn't be ashamed of who he is or what he believes in. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Anyone who has cleaned a house knows that one should be paid at least $50K a year. Ugh! Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Also Emily's List is for pro-choice women who raise boatloads of cash. No one outside of antisocial people is pro-abortion. Eli Blake|W|P|thinkright:The reason that Pederson calls himself 'independent' is to follow through on what he said right before that that he doesn't care if Republicans have an idea. He is contrasting himself from the traditional partisan back and forth in Washington where people are more interested in denying the other party a victory than they are in solving problems.
His other point is even more blunt. Look at his slogan:
He'll be nobody's Senator but ours.
In this, the year of Jack Abramoff and numerous other Washington corruption scandals, Pederson is pointing out that 1) he is too rich to be bought with money, and 2) he is largely self financing his campaign because then he won't 'owe' anybody anything. Jon Kyl, who has been in Washington either as an intern, a staffer, a lobbyist a Congressman or a Senator for his entire adult life, has by now become such a slave of the system that even if he wanted to change, he could not. Not only because he has lived inside the beltway for so long (even for a time as a kid, when his dad was a Congressman) that to him the people at the Cato institute represent 'middle America,' but because all this distortion has been financed with big money, and those who have been paying it expect something in return.
The big special interests that have paid Kyl a ton of campaign cash and given him numerous paid trips, meals and other perks to vote against the interests of the people of Arizona on everything from negotiating prescription drug prices to allowing warning labels on food, now have him so far in both monetary and other kinds of debt that they own his soul.
Eli Blake|W|P|espo:You are right there.
I was in New Mexico when Jeff Bingaman first ran against incumbent Republican Senator Harrison "Jack" Schmitt in 1982.
Schmitt ran some apparently devastating negative ads that attacked Bingaman's role (then as state A.G.) in a couple of cases. The ads were lies. Bingaman stood up and called them lies publically, and corrected the record. Schmitt looked both foolish and viscious at the same time, and his campaign never recovered. Bingaman is today running for his fourth Senate term (and the only time he was really challenged in the interim was in the Republican year of 1994, when he got an 'attack dog' opponent by the name of Colin McMillan, and Bingaman proved he could give it back with interest, and he won by a comfortable margin in a year when Republicans were sweeping their way through New Mexico as they were elsewhere.)
You are right, Espo, you are right-- if Pederson gets the facts together and calls Kyl's ads on the factual lies-- without using the word, 'lie' but just correcting the record, he could really land a body blow to Kyl's campaign-- and after that, any further negative ads by Kyl would not be taken very seriously by a lot of people.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|PhxKid: Intact dilation and extraction is generally done in extreme cases in the third trimester and per Roe v Wade: (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. A ban on the procedure that does not include these two exceptions is unconstitutional and why I, for one, happen to be against the medically inaccurate Partial Birth Abortion Ban. As you should know, I dislike abortions but feel that I have no right to tell another woman how to live her life or her has to bear a child she does not want. As for other Dems who are pro-choice, ask them why they support a woman's choice to have or not have a child at any given point in her life. Also my point about housework pay is that a woman who does housework might not be paid a salary like you are at your outside the house job, but she works none the less and so would presumably get some compensation for that from a spouse. Part of that compensation could be money that she choses to spend on candidates.
Morg, my prefered name derivitive is Beth or Lizzy.
As for Margaret Sanger being a pro-abortion person, she actually was anti-abortion out of concern for the mother after seeing the result of botched illegal ones as a midwife. She also believed that to reduce abortions, women should have full access to birth control methods such as diaphrams and eventually the pill.
She was however a strong advocate of Eugenics to remove the chances of children born who would lead disadvantaged lives (in other words the handicapped) or in her words in 1932: "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." As such she has been repeatedly taken out of context to prove that she was pro-abortion/racist by the anti-choice movement.
She was responsible for the first clinic to be opened in Harlem to serve black women with proper medical care and was recognized by various figures of the Civil Rights movement to have been a help rather then someone who was trying to prevent blacks from achiving equality in America.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Hey Bored, everyone in D17 likes Clean Elections...in fact both sides are using it! Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Morg: Ask the women who get intact dilation and extractions. *I* cannot decide for ANY woman what to do about her life or her pregnancy. That is not my right, nor for that matter yours. But I am sure you would have no issue demanding an answer out of a woman who had one regardless of her feelings on the matter. And pointing out that yes Margaret Sanger was a Eugencist and quoting her exact words (and the year said) does not indicate endorsement of such ideals. It does however show a respect for the truth that you unfortunately do not seem to have.
Please do not impose beliefs on me that I have not stated I have. Thank you.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ruben, you are right, the attack is on Griswald v CT because apparently even married couples cannot make private family decisions.And not every woman can take the pill, it has some nasty side affects. That said, women AND men should be responsible regarding sex and if a woman has unprotected sex she should have access to OTC Plan B.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Actually Morg, you accused me of being something I am not simply because I was pointing out exactly what Ms. Sanger actually said and the context of her statements. Telling the truth does not indicate an endorsement of anyone else's ideas. It means that I refuse to let someone twist words into lies. I would do the same with George W. Bush and would expect you to not accuse me of being a non-rich white person hating warmongering neo-con who favors incompetence.You also are overreacting to my polite way of asking you to not impose beliefs on me that I have not stated. Per Ted's request that we be nice to you, I am being polite.
As for the individual, I do support the individual-the woman. I trust that she is making the right decision since *I* again, do not have to deal with the results of her pregnancy. I never said I liked it and in fact have stated I dislike abortion.
Also, you are imposing beliefs on others with your claim that all Dems/Liberals are happy with 1 in 4 pregnancies (which based on the recent stats from the CDC is more like 1 in 6) ending in abortion. Women do not have access to contraception in the same way that men do (you can just put on a condom) nor is ours always covered by medical plans. In addition, Hillary Clinton (who you may or may not hate for reasons that you should explain if you do hate her) and Harry Reid both have sponsered legislation that would require medical insurance plans to cover birth control pills (for those women who are lucky enough to be able to stand it) the same way that they cover Viagra.
Tedski|W|P|Guys...could we keep it civil...this is getting almost as bad as the "Anyone that doesn't support my CD8 Candidate is a Fascist" arguments. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I heard on NPR that is lower then 10,000 but more then 1,000. Eli Blake|W|P|Interesting. I thought the same thing when I heard the President say it.Like I said on my blog though, it sounds like a fresh idea for people in the other 48 states.
Tedski|W|P|Morg-Point taken on the Guard issue, and even if he needed congressional support (if extra funding is needed, for example), this would be the one part of the plan that sails through with broad support.
However, what about the guest worker plan? The issue has gone to a conference committee where the house conferees have already said that both the guest worker plan and the limited amnesty plan are DOA. How much political capital will he be willing to put on the line for that one? Does he have any left?
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Now come on Ted, we all know you got into private school on your brains and brains alone. :p Eli Blake|W|P|I have no problem if you played LaCrosse at a private school. As long as it wasn't this year, at Duke University.Of course, I went to an elite public university (yes there is such a thing) that banned intercollegiate sports except for student run clubs so we had a lacrosse team, but I opted for rubgy instead.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Women never turn Ted down. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well that is lovely for you Ted! Are you going to still associate with us little people or do we have to speak to a spokesperson? Craig|W|P|They could have mentioned that you are in the lege....Espressopundit gets "Greg Patterson, a former lawmaker"
vs.
while you get "Ted Prezelski, 36, a Tucson teacher" (which, as you noted, isn't completely accurate, even as far as it goes.)
Congrats!
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Tom Prezelski is not cool enough to have a blog, and Ted has not won his race yet.And Mister T, you are just jealous that Ted's cuter then you so gets more female fan mail. :p
Craig|W|P|Oops. Sorry 'bout that. That's what I get for trying to post during work.
Work has a way of interfering with my concentration. Darn that.
:))
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|It is cool cpmaz...I make mistakes all the time. No one is perfect. :) Geo|W|P|Congrats, Ted!Don't forget us little bloggers now that you've hit the big time! :)
Jane Arizona|W|P|It's not quantity of traffic that counts, it's quality. Like I can see what House staffers are worried about, or whom the Justice Department is investigating. Blogging rules! Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I told you in an email on Friday the SECOND I HEARD ABOUT IT ON NPR!Do I need to start calling you with these bulletins?
Tedski|W|P|Elizabeth...yes...I got your e-mail...I just chose not to write about it until yesterday... Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|oh, I misunderstood the joke, I thought you were whining again about no one telling you anything. Never mind! Daniel R. Patterson, Editor|W|P|Sheriff Joe has got to go! His dangerous zealotry is just one of the many reasons I avoid Maricopa Cty. as much as I can. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Using the posse seems to be about as sensible as data mining people's phone records. Michael Bryan|W|P|At least Ranger Joe's keystone INS routine will provide a good dataset for how completely ineffective local enforcement is in dealing with this issue. There is a reason that almost every law enforcement leader in the state is against this kind of stupidity: it is not what they are trained for, it distracts from the job they are supposed to be doing, and there's no damn budget for it. Tedski|W|P|When he catches a smuggler...I'll post a correction. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I had no idea that strong education, decent food, and shelter were conductive to making people poor. But hey, I just read studies showing that Democratic policies lift people out of poverty. What do I know?
Tedski|W|P|Wow...that wen't off topic there. You have to excuse Elizabeth...she attended one of our poorly funded state universities.So...I was criticizing Sheriff Arpaio...and it becomes an indictment of the welfare system. Um...okay. So, what part don't you like? Maybe AFDC, oh yeah, that was Nixon's idea...and it was gutted by Bill Clinton.
So...what would be better at solving our the poverty problem? Cutting them off completely and just hoping that the "invisible hand" lifts them up?
I am not inclined to like Qwest. Not only are they the monopolistic "man" keeping us down, but they are owned by the media-shy Philip Anschutz, who is an owner of DC United. Anyone that keeps Freddy Adu and Alecko Eskandarian gainfully employed is pretty low on my list.
But, as it turns out, they did a decent, honorable, and yes, patriotic thing. They refused to turn over customer usage details to the National Security Agency. This means that despite the fact that tens of millions of Americans have their phone calls logged in an NSA database (every one of these customers leading a dangerous al-Quaeda cell, no doubt), Qwest customers were free from this invasion of privacy.
As I hear more about this, it ticks me off more and more. It turns out that these other companies were paid, yes paid, for these records. No warrant or appeal to patriotism there, just raw greed. Qwest, on the other hand, stood fast even though they were threatened with the loss of government contracts.
R-Cubed kudos to Qwest.
At what point will people actually get angry about this sort of thing?|W|P|114738778831578338|W|P|Qwest Refuses to Cooperate with Dragnet|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I worked at Qwest (and actually left because of the way they treated their customers) during Nacchio's reign as CEO and while I do blame him for destroying my manager's (who I happened to like) retirement and subsequent lay off right before she found out she was ill, I have to say, he did the right thing this one and only time.His replacement Dick Notebaert has been decent enough I suppose and actually ended the talks with the NSA.
By the way you suck for posting about this before I had a chance to. Now I have to come up with another topic.
Jane Arizona|W|P|Angry about it? If you're Jon Kyl, you're angry that the public knows about this. Daniel R. Patterson, Editor|W|P|Yes, and the middle finger to Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth for cooperating with Bush NSA on this. Protect Democracy|W|P|Our tax dollars being used. Yes, we are paying the phone companies to let the NSA spy on us. Almost like a Twilight Zone episode.
Qwest has been ripping off customers for years. I nearly filed a lawsuit 10 years ago and created a case file but dropped it because I was too busy with other things.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Call Ted up on the phone Kral...then demand to know where to send money or help.Or get a blank form and fill it out with the pertinant information and give it to him the next time you see him.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Also Ted cannot talk about his campaign on this blog because it would be considered an inkind contribution since this blog is read by everyone of note in the state.I do believe that the third blog could be used to talk about the race since I am the only person who reads it apparently.
Michael Bryan|W|P|I think it is a sad indicator of how bad things have become when a corporation gets kudos simply for doing the right thing. In any healthy poltical economy, it would be the expected standard of behavior, not the notable exception.That said, I do feel a little better about paying my cellular bill this month.
desertfox|W|P|Any word on a funeral? eckeric|W|P|Off topic Mad Libs:I will admit that the posting history of Phx Kid in regard to being off topic is kind of a dated story. Apparently in a more recent event Phx Kid should get his own blog.
I know you were very concerned if there had been off topic posting down in other threads with the Phx Kid. I am sure you are equally concerned about the possibility of a not having a clue as to what the post is about here. Oh, BTW posting under the influence covers medications. That’s why they no longer just call it posting while drunk. Being impaired because of medication is not a good excuse, he still should not have been posting.
Eli Blake|W|P|It doesn't matter which Republican Kolbe endorses. Yours is a competitive district, and this could be a very good year for Democrats. So, as long as the Democrats at the end of the day unite around the eventual primary winner (and y'all have several good candidates, my advice is again to be sure to come together in the endgame-- like we didn't in 2002) my prediction is this:Kobe's team lost last night, and Kolbe's team will lose in November.
Tedski|W|P|You know, I knew I didn't need to say anything about Patrick Kennedy because Phx Kid would bring it up.For all of the handwringing from the right about this incident (those priveleged Kennedys!), would we have even heard about it if it was not a Kennedy? Probably not.
Say, what about that nest of hookers that lobbyists were using to ply defense contracts out of Republican congressmen? Since that actually resulted in some piss poor equipment going to our soldiers, you'd think that there would be more hackles from the "dexter" side of the aisle.
What? Nothing? So hard to hear it sometimes.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|PhxKid: Saipan'nuff said.
Anyway, this came up during the last Prez election about Al Gore endorsing Dean, what exactly does an endorsement do except maybe bring in some money?
Eli Blake|W|P|Krajmajales:I agree with your assessment. Graf has a lot of support from the rest of the ultra-right loonies around the country too (those who supported Helen Chenowyth a few years ago and who now idolize Tom Tancredo). There may not be enough of them to win in general, but they have a history of getting together to work under the radar and elect an occasional congressman, and they are a reliable source of funds.
As you all know, I'm basically a smart alec. If you make a slight error, I will jump on it and make fun of you.
But I try to be fair. For example, when I first saw Mike Hellon's ad, I thought I heard wrong when they said that Arizona will elect its first new congressman since 1984.
I saw the ad again today, and yes, they do say that. Not "Southeastern Arizona," but "Arizona." Go to his website and check it out.
"First new congressman" in the last twenty years would come as a big shock to Jon Kyl, Jay Rhodes, Ed Pastor, Karan English, Sam Coppersmith, John Shadegg, Matt Salmon, J. D. Hayworth, Jeff Flake, Rick Renzi, Trent Franks or Raúl Grijalva, who were all "new congressmen" in the decades since 1984. This is a shade over 40% of the people who have represented Arizona in the House of Representatives since statehood.
NB - This ad is running pretty early. Is Jon Kyl going to have a press release saying that Hellon is "desperate"?|W|P|114678965238802866|W|P|Mike Hellon Ad|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Eli Blake|W|P|Jon Kyl started running his own early ads last week.He even came out with the obligatory 'why is Jim Pederson running attack ads' ad which usually presages a flurry of personal attacks.
Of course Pederson only has called into question some of the more ridiculous aspects of Kyl's immigration plan-- which is already on the record-- but I expect Kyl to run a very sleazy campaign straight out of the sewer. And why do I expect that? Because a couple of months ago I got a phone call from a 'pollster' who was trying to smear Pederson with a bunch of half truths and distortions. I'm sure I will hear them again, on Kyl's commercials.
Craig|W|P|Wonder if Gould is looking at Tom Tancredo and JD Hayworth and thinking to himself "I could do that"? Michael|W|P|Dumbest member of the legislature? He's got some stiff competition for that dubious title... Eli Blake|W|P|George:I also miss Air America. But if you are a bit conspiratorially minded, I have a morsel for you.
I listened to Air America from up here in northeastern Arizona. It would come in scratchy, but you could listen to it easily enough.
Then about four months before it went off the air, all of a sudden another (mostly conservative) talk show station from Salt Lake City on the same band (1010) boosted their power or something that caused their signal to interfere with AA Phoenix, so if you were driving around, say on the reservation or in Winslow, you'd have a tough time picking out what was said on Air America.
But since the switchover-- surprise, the Salt Lake City station has powered down so now if you are driving on the reservation you can still hear the 'new' Christian 1010 with no problems.
There was one night when I got to do a talk show on a usually Republican station in Albuquerque (it was part of a promotional contest they were doing.) I had a great time and did a very good job, if I do say so myself. But I don't think what I was saying fit their audience profile.
Tedski|W|P|I know...she's also despised by her party (evidence: they recruited a marginally qualified schlub to run against her last time out)...might be good to get her some help. Shane Wikfors|W|P|It would be interesting how the vote went and who advocated for the hike. I can tell you that Mayes, Mundell and Gleason are known as RINO's which would likely translate to fiscal positions. Mayes was even the Communications Director for Napolitano - definitely not a friend to conservatives, social or fiscal.I've enjoyed the Polish political information that has recently been posted to this list. I wasn't going to say anything about the recent posts regarding the immigrant marches, but then I recalled that story about how no one spoke up for the other people and when they came to take me away and there was no one left to speak. I know that this is going to draw brickbats, but so be it. The organization of the immigrant marches was prompted by a Congressional bill that would have made it a felony to assist an illegal alien. As originally written, if you gave the illegal immigrant food or water it could have been a felony. That bill was subsequently rewritten when it was realized how severe the punishment would have been for even minor acts of goodwill. But the impetus for the immigrants to be heard was started. There is nothing like that initial taste of free speech and the right to assemble to fill one's heart and spirit. I'm not an historian, but I believe that the American Revolution, the Boston Tea Party, the underground railroad, and Solidarność, to name a few, were all illegal in their time. It is important for a civil society to obey laws. It is also important to take a look at those laws from time to time. My ancestors, of course, came from Poland. They came before WWII, so did not have to suffer in a DP camp. Wouldn't it have been nice if those that had to suffer all those years in DP camps could have been brought to this country sooner? Why did it take so long? Was it possibly the concern of Americans that they didn't want all those poor, uneducated, non-English speaking people here? My ancestors came in the early part of the 20th century. They did not immediately learn the language and assimilate. They had radio and newspapers, but these were Polish language as were their families, neighbors and the priests and nuns. My mother was born in this country and didn't learn any English until she went to school. Parts of the south side of Chicago were like little Polish villages. Sound familiar? In 1911 or so that someone testifying before a Congressional committee trying to keep down the number of people legally allowed to immigrate from Eastern Europe said that those people shouldn't be allowed in because the Slavic languages are so different from English that they would never learn English and therefore never assimilate. They were talking about my grandparents. From recent comments I think some of the Slavic descendants have assimilated far too well. They now sound just like the Americans who were trying to keep our ancestors out. Living in Chicago and being active in the Polish community I often interact with immigrants from both Mexico and Poland. Some of the "legal" Polish immigrants are here on student visas. I guess you could say they are "studying business" since what they are doing is learning trades, working and sending money home to Poland. In all the reports of yesterday's march in Chicago not one person "demanded" to be made a citizen. What I heard were people who wanted to be heard, to tell their story of hard work and suffering, why they want to work in America, to say that other than not coming into America through legal channels they are law abiding, work and pay taxes. That there must be something we can do so that they aren't "illegal". Basically, they want to be "legal" aliens. I think California and other southwestern and southern states bear a hugely uneven burden of illegal immigration from Mexico. But I'm sure there must be a way to relieve that burden. If we don't start talking, that solution will never be found. Another thing that we are seeing in Chicago is a huge increase in the number of legal aliens who were too busy putting food on the table and a roof over their heads to think about something as trivial as politics now realizing that they can make a difference. They are registering for citizenship and to vote in droves. My Polish ancestors were dirt poor and came to this country because they were hungry - dla chlebem. They suffered to get into this country and then suffered discrimination when they got here. Stories of their suffering breaks my heart. The plight of immigrants hasn't changed since the Israelites fled Egypt. (Remember how they whined and complained about their condition to Moses for 40 years!) Knowing my ancestors' sufferings how can I not at least listen to these immigrants. I don't know the solution of how to strengthen our borders to keep America safer for those who feel threatened, but I'm willing to listen and discuss it. I don't know the answers to address the immigrant issues. But I think that I am not honoring the sacrifices of our country's founding fathers and my ancestors, that I am not honoring my faith, honoring Solidarność, unless I listen to those who are asking to be heard and seeking a better way. I'll duck now since I know what's coming. Pozdrawiam.|W|P|114666543975527569|W|P|From the Polish-American List|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Eli Blake|W|P|What people don't realize is that the number of illegal immigrants is the difference between the number that the job market will support, and the number that Congress wishes came here (the legal quota.) For a party that is such a big believer in free markets, the Republicans sure seem to have a disconnect going on this one. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I had a very long argument with my mother last night over this. I nearly hung up on her because I was so angry at how she just repeated all of these right wing talking points about how evil the illegal immigrants are.I told her that what she is saying is the same thing that was said about the Polish, the Jews from Eastern Europe, Russians, the Irish...any large group of immigrants (legal or not) who were not proper English speakers.
She said "so what?"
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Oh and she gets mad at me for speaking the proper English my snarky English friends teach me. "You are American! Speak American!"
John Kenneth Galbraith has died. While many economists seem to be cheerleaders for policies slanted towards the upper end of society, Galbraith showed that even the most prosperous economies have large groups of people that didn't share in that prosperity.
Gosh, you mean everyone doesn't have a two-car garage? You mean to tell me we have to think about those people?
The Ottawa Citizen has a long article on Galbraith.|W|P|114649285242683890|W|P|John Kenneth Galbraith|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|RIP Mr. Galbraith, thanks for the words of wisdom.