Weiss Calls on Huffman to Return Lobbyist Funds Republican Legislator was "Wined and Dined" to the Tune of Almost $5,000

TUCSON, ARIZ. – In a series of news articles about lobbyist influence at the Arizona State Legislature, it was reported that lobbyists spent almost $5,000 on District 8 Congressional candidate state Rep. Steve Huffman (R-26) for food, beverages, travel and entertainment. These funds came from lobbyists representing many interests including tobacco companies, out-of-state electric utilities and real estate developers who had a stake in legislation on which Huffman voted. "If this is not an example of pay-for-play, I don't know what is," said District 8 Democratic Candidate Patty Weiss. "We need representatives in Washington who will stand up to the corporate special interests, not line their pockets with gifts from lobbyists. Rep. Huffman should immediately return these funds." In the course of her campaign to become Congressional District 8's Citizen Representative in Washington, Weiss has proposed an ethics reform package that includes airtight bans on gifts and dramatically-discounted flights on corporate jets, and publicly-funded Congressional elections based on Arizona's Clean Elections model.

6/28/2006 08:52:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Phx Kid-

I hope you know, I don't consider you "Looney Tunes," you are more like "Merrie Melodies..."

I kid because I love.6/28/2006 03:54:00 PM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|Just a very quick remark, Tedski, to let you there are those of us that do appreciate your humor.

Laugh pretty hard here on a semi-regular basis. Folks down the hall heard me when I read first line of this original post.

Thanks6/30/2006 02:00:00 PM|W|P| GOPinsider|W|P|No, Huffman has not gone to lunch with the Center for Arizona Policy or Len Munsil.

And big deal, so over 8 years in office he's met with lobbyists? As Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, he's accomplished more for the Arizona economy during his service than Patty or Gaby ever have. That is, unless you count overcharging people for tires at El Campo to be good for the economy.

There's a reason why Jack Furrier used to advertise that everything was included in their prices and that's because El Campo was infamous for added charges.6/27/2006 05:07:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, Rush Limbaugh was caught with Viagra that he probably wasn't supposed to have after a Carribean vacation. So that leads me to ask why he needed Viagra. Then it makes me think about things and generated images for me that have ruined me for a week. Thanks.|W|P|115145367593735009|W|P|The Quicker Picker Upper|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/27/2006 05:16:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, like most big 'family values' guys, he's been through what, three failed marriages by now?6/27/2006 06:07:00 PM|W|P| Jane Arizona|W|P|Abstinence until marriage! And then, after marriage, chemically-assisted boonie calls!6/27/2006 06:58:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Slap on the wrist has shown to be a great deterent in his case...maybe this time they can throw the book at him and see if that works.6/27/2006 08:51:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|he just wanted to make it special for my birthday PhxKid.

And what else is more special then the image of Rush Limbaugh needing Viagra for his non-wife?6/27/2006 09:54:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Former Avondale Mayor Ron Drake was spotted at McMahon's Prime Steakhouse meeting with local Republican leaders to plan strategy for his congressional race against Raúl Grijalva. One of the people he met with was one-time-talked-about Republican CD 8 candidate Christine Olson. One of the topics discussed was how to win over the Hispanic vote on the West and South sides of Tucson. Well, one way to do it may be to actually visit the district, and to talk to people who live there. Meeting over at the corner of Swan and Fort Lowell with people who wouldn't be caught dead at a South or West Side restaurant probably isn't an effective way to campaign in CD 7. But what would I know? Heck, Christine Olson is still listed as National Committee Woman for the Pennsylvania Republican party. I'm not sure what special local expertise she has aside from being married to Lute Olson. Maybe Drake thinks that Susquehanna County is part of the district. The least I can say is at least McMahon's is in the city limits. Most of the time when Maricopa County Republicans grace our area, the closest they come to Tucson is a foothills country club. Too bad Lute's old restaurant didn't stay open; it was in CD 7. A fundraising letter went out on Drake's behalf from Tom & Diane McCarthy to folks affiliated with WESTMARK, an economic development authority in the West Valley. In it, Drake touts bringing NASCAR to the area, among other things. But the most interesting part is his "conservative voting estimate." This isn't a poll, but his view of the scenario that lets him win this race. It doesn't actually give him a win; he gives numbers that give him a tie vote. I guess he's hoping he wins on penalty kicks: La Paz: Drake 2,800 (62%), Grijalva 1,800 (39%) Maricopa: Drake 15,000 (58%), Grijalva 11,000 (42%) Pima: Drake 42,000 (42%), Grijalva 58,000 (58%) Pinal: Drake 8,000 (67%), Grijalva 4,000 (33%) Santa Cruz: Drake 4,000 (44%), Grijalva 5,000 (56%) Yuma: Drake 24,000 (60%), Grijalva 16,000 (40%) Total: Drake 95,800 (50%), Grijalva 95,800 (50%) The table also includes John McCain's 2004 vote totals, I guess to show that this is "doable." This number is only useful if Drake thinks that somehow Grijalva will drop out in favor of Stuart Starky. The funny thing is, the "esitmate" assumes Drake will get more votes in the Pinal County portion of the district than McCain did. Given that McCain is the Republicans' top vote getter, fat chance of that happening. Drake also assumes he will get twice as many votes in Yuma County than did 2002 candidate Ross Heib, who was from there and had been elected there too. I realize that part of campaigning is convincing folks you will win. You can't get too many contributions saying "Grijalva will beat me like a gong." But, this just seems delusional. NB - This Diane McCarthy who sent this letter, is she the same Diane McCarthy played chambermaid for APS and SRP on the Corporation Commission in the 1980's?|W|P|115142876681510116|W|P|Ron Drake Campaign Update|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/27/2006 02:44:00 PM|W|P| GOPinsider|W|P|Yes - it's the same Diane McCarthy.

Why Drake thinks that anyone from Southern Arizona or Yuma will even look at him is the mystery. Unlike most AZ congressional districts, this is one where the Phoenix candidate is actually at a disadvantage. Most voters don't even know that the districts extends all the way to Avondale - and is anyone from Tucson actually going to vote for someone who wants to take credit for Phoenix getting another event? Yeah right.

If he could take credit for former Tucsonan Robert Sarver buying the Suns and moving training camp to McKale he might get some traction.6/27/2006 03:47:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|And whoever saw them there even reported on what they were discussing?

Sounds like maybe next time they should meet at somebody's house.6/27/2006 03:51:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|You say the table assumes that 'Drake will get more votes in the Pinal portion of the district than McCain did.' But I don't see Pinal listed in your chart.6/27/2006 04:14:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Eli- I'm sorry, I forgot to include the Pinal County numbers. I've added them.

Mr T- He can eat and strategize anywhere he wants...we have both worked for candidates who think they can win by talking to "key people" who will take care of things, I guess he thinks he can win this this way rather than talking to actual voters. I wouldn't have even noted it, 'cept it is the closest thing to a "public event" that he has had in Tucson thus far.6/27/2006 07:34:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|I live one block outside of CD 7. Did you want to come over or something?6/28/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|I didn't think the map was that big. I remember in Blogger College that they said that visuals were important.6/28/2006 11:02:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Anonymous-

This is the first "event" of Drake's I have even heard of down here. He hasn't had, as far as I know, any sort of events on the South or West sides of town.

This seems to follow a Republican campaign pattern down here: have a few press conferences, hobknob with the foothills types, then wonder why no one in Tucson proper wants to vote for you.6/27/2006 07:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A poll was released last week that showed that Patty Weiss had a ten point lead over Gabrielle Giffords. So, if Patty is the front runner, why has she decided to go negative against one of her opponents. I mean, no need to, since she is so far ahead, right? Weiss's campaign is taking Giffords on for not taking Clean Elections money. Apparently, the only way to support the Clean Elections system is taking the money. Weiss at a candidate forum in Willcox on Saturday:

Gabby, Gabby, Gabby... [laughter] Gabby says she absolutely believes in clean elections. she says she has voted to protect arizona's clean elections laws. and that may be the case. in 2000, Gabby Giffords had the opportunity to run clean elections and chose to take special interest money. in 2002, gabby had opportunity to run clean elections and took special interest money. and in 2004, Gabby had the opportunity to run clean elections and took special interest money. This is the most important issue we have talked about today. Nothing good is going to be accomplished in Congress until we have publicly financed congresional campaigns. I have stood up for this issue since day one of my campaign and I pledge to you, I will run clean elections, I will fight for clean elections, because that is the only way we will be able to fight for you.

Giffords was part of several efforts to turn back Republican legislation that would have defunded Clean Elections. Efforts sponsored, by the way, by Republicans who had run clean (some of whom are running Clean again!) By Patty's logic, sponsors of anti-Clean Elections legislation like Rick Murphy and Laura Knaperek are much better at protecting the system, since they've taken Clean Elections money. In the past, I've pointed out the times such as this that Giffords had turned back really gawdawful Republican legislation, and some of my readers have pooh-poohed this as parliamentary tricks or not really that important. Funny thing, given that whoever wins this race stands a pretty even chance of serving in the minority party, knowing ways to use the system to stop bad legislation will be a big part of the job desciption. By the way, Howard Dean opted out of the public financing in his last presidential campaign. I expect that Weiss will confront him about this when he visits on Thursday. Oh, I hope she brings her campaign manager, Frank Costanzo, with her. He did work for him, after all. I know that Weiss, given her previous occupation, was probably unable to give political contributions. But, while her husband was giving money to Jon Kyl's campaign, did he see fit to donate to the Keep It Clean committee when Clean Elections was under threat? Didn't think so. Weiss has a diary on Daily Kos where on Sunday she makes her point about this, but also demands that Giffords release her internal polls.

Is Gabby unwilling to stand up and defend her actions? Did she change her opinion of public financing when she saw the results of her issues poll that she won't make public? She certainly can't change her record.

Giffords hasn't released her polls? Of course not. Weiss released the results of two questions on a rather detailed poll. Given she has only released the narrow slice of what she thinks is favorable to her, it is silly for her to criticize Giffords for not releasing her numbers. What is it on her poll, which shows her leading, that says that she has to go negative? The public needs to know, right? By the way, few campaigns release their internal polls. That's why they are called "internal." Another knock on this line is that Giffords won't tell her staff about the polling. I don't think this is true in this case, but it happens occasionally. Grijalva's campaign in 2002, for example, kept their polling very close to the vest, because they didn't want the staff to slack off if they found out how far ahead they were. In that diary, Weiss denies going negative. I don't live in a Political Cloudcuckooland; I know that "negative" is not always "bad." Pointing out what you percieve as flaws in your opponent's campaign is sometimes necessary and can be instructive to voters, it is still negative though. To deny this is just spin.|W|P|115142180008063526|W|P|Weiss Goes Negative?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/27/2006 10:36:00 AM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Not that I live in your district, but I've been following this race with interest, and to date I've managed to avoid posting this here for probably a record six weeks, but it sounds like I have to go back into broken record mode:

Our experience in CD 1 in 2002 was instructive-- we had about six candidates, and there were enough hard feelings from the primary that it was not possible to bring people together in time before the general. The result was that a flood of eastern, Republican money (most of it, we now know, donated and spent illegally) swept in a little known former Kyl staffer from Virginia, who we are now stuck with in what should have been a Democratic district.

So: my only advice (based on this unfortunate experience) is that y'all have a great opportunity down there to pick up a seat for the good guys. Don't blow it by getting too disunited during the primary.6/27/2006 03:46:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Roger:

I don't know that I have any 'sage' advice to give, but what I would say is 1) any attack should be responded to, in terms of pointing out what is wrong with it, and 2) still save the really negative stuff for the general. Just my opinion.

As far as why Weiss is going negative when she is claiming the polls show her up, I dunno why she is doing that, although if she makes the point and then continues on to something else, then it's not necessarily all that negative. But it's perfectly fine to rebut it.

As for the general topic of why go negative if the polls show you in front? Maybe ask Jon Kyl about that.6/26/2006 05:31:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I guess Mike Hellon has totally given up on this "Moderate Republican" thing. I don't know if his polling has shown that he can't compete with Steve Huffman for the moderates, or if he thinks that there are still a few in the anti-immigrant crowd that haven't heard of Randy Graf. His latest round of ads (available on his website) touts his border security plan. Not really a plan, but a set of the regular old talking points that are nearly identical to the ads from say, Jon Kyl. 'Cept for one thing: he advocates denying citizenship to the children of immigrants. Kyl talks about the importance of not breaking up families in his ad, so this could be a difference. Who knows? Both ads are so free of specifics. Of course, denying citizenship to anyone born here violates the Fourteenth Ammendment. The Republicans were so proud of the Fourteenth when they passed it. It seems like many of their candidates have forgotten about it. I'm talking about you, Don Goldwater. Interestingly, the visuals in the television ad consist of a map of the district complete with little lines that point to one or another border community as details of his plan are revealed. Um, does this mean that no communities in CD 7 will get these border cameras and stuff? I mean, the guy shouldn't show a map. Does he realize that the illegal crossers will use this map and cross in the Arizona 7th and the New Mexico 2nd? This is treason. He's just like Geraldo Rivera.|W|P|115136954942675127|W|P|Hellon a Handbasket|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/26/2006 06:09:00 PM|W|P| Prudent Man|W|P|It's interesting you mention the 14th amendment. I think it applied to slaves, who prior to emancipation, were under the jurisdiction of the government of the United States. Illegal immigrants wouldn't fall into a category of being under the jurisdiction of the United States government, so it seems that the 14th amendment wouldn't apply.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, as well as after it, there was, and is a lawful path to citizenship. Just showing up doesn't seem a good path, except for Cuban refugees, who by law can show up. Except for that Elian Gonzales kid. He showed up and President Clinton sent him back.6/26/2006 06:17:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Check the 14th Ammendment again (it's at Wikipedia) you'll see no exception for aliens, illegal or otherwise.

Yeah, just showing up is fine for Cubans, just a coincidence that they are a Republican voting bloc and are relatively wealthy as immigrants go. Oh wait, it's only the Democrats that pander, right?6/26/2006 06:49:00 PM|W|P| Prudent Man|W|P|Thanks for the Wikipedia link. The link gives an interpretation (I think the legal term is annotation) but not the actual text of the amendment, which is much shorter than the interpretation (as many things are). How about this:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Sections 2 thru 5 have no bearing on this discussion. Section 1 has the word 'AND' which means both conditions need satisfied. So, it seems that an illegal showing up and having a baby wouldn't satify the condition of section 1.

I never thought of Elian Gonzales and his mother, risking their lives to be free (not economically) as an act of a wealthy immigrant. Point is the law says he should have been able to stay, and President Clinton broke up the family, which as you point out Senator Kyl doesn't think is a good idea. I guess Jim Pederson, since all he does is criticize all of Jon Kyl's votes, would be in favor of breaking up the families.6/26/2006 09:23:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|On Kyl keeping families together:

This is another case of where his rhetoric doesn't match his actions. There is a couple living near me (a mixed marriage, a Democratic wife and a Republican husband) who don't want any part of Kyl. Some years ago, their son got married to a Philipino woman. The brides' father and mother are also in the United States. Well, they wanted to complete the family and bring her two brothers over as well. So they wrote to Jon Kyl about that, and never got a response. Not even a response saying he couldn't help them, just nothing. So when they heard that ad about 'keeping families together' it just really increased their blood pressure, to the point that I'm sure they will be voting for Jim Pederson even though about all they know about Jim is what they've heard on TV.

For Kyl to just blow off a letter like that from constituents wanting help in bringing their family together, and then claim on TV that he wants to keep families together is particularly odious, but it's vintage Kyl.6/26/2006 09:39:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Prudent man:

The baby, however, is subject to the jursidiction of the United States as well as the state where it is born (living in the U.S.) AND was born here, so the baby is a citizen. It would be absurd to suggest that the baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the local authorities since the first thing that they have to do is create a birth certificate (and a birth certificate written by, say, Sonoran authorities about a baby born in a hospital in, say, Yuma, would be considered null and void because it would be outside of their jurisdiction.)6/27/2006 05:47:00 AM|W|P| Prudent Man|W|P|Hi Eli,

Absolutely, the child of your neighbors son is a citizen of the United States. Anybody saying otherwise would be nuts.
I think your neighbors are justified to be upset that the Senators staff did not respond to their letter. On something so important to them, hopefully it didn't drop with one unanswered letter. But, I think that accusing Kyl of being a hypocrite because of this is a stretch. Since several families members of your neighbors are already in the U.S. then the process for coming here must be known. From what I understand it can be very lenghty. Hopefully the family wasn't thinking they could get Kyl to somehow streamline the process and put these folks ahead of other folks. That would be hypocritical, and not Kyl's M.O.6/24/2006 10:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Patty Weiss's campaign released one of their internal polls this week, showing that Weiss has a lead over Gabrielle Giffords, 32% to 22%. The poll also showed that Weiss has a 63% favorability rating among primary voters. This brings up something interesting for political geeks like me. During this phase of the campaign, while most voters aren't yet paying attention, candidates try to build credibility with the political intelligencia by making their nomination or election seem inevitable, "Better get on the bus now before it's too late," or, more sinisterly, "You don't want to be left out after I win this." Both campaigns can make good cases for this. Jeff Latas's campaign is playing by a different set of rules, not counting on high-profile endorsements or mounds of Washington money. Giffords can make the case based on the fact that she has run for office before and understands the political process. She will win this because she knows how to win. Weiss, on the other hand, can make the case based on her popularity in the district. She will win this because she is well known. Weiss's campaign has been putting this out there for a long time, people know who she is, so she is the front runner. Maybe too many people asked about whether or not this is true, so they finally put out some numbers confirming this is the case. Weiss's ten point lead in this poll is being spun as confirmation that Giffords just can't compete for the public's heart with the connection that Weiss has built up over decades on our TV screens. Greg Patterson over at Espresso Pundit is ready to declare the primary over. I don't know if I want Phoenix Republicans declaring Baja Arizona Democratic primaries over. The counterspin is, what, only ten points? What you hear from the Giffords camp is that despite her rather impressive name ID (75%), that isn't translating to people actually wanting to vote for Weiss. This seems to be an opinion shared by some in the press. On the "Political Roundtable" on yesterday's Arizona Illustrated, Ernesto Portillo Jr. said that the numbers looked pretty good for Giffords given how little public campaigning there has been so far and how well known Weiss is. The point, some would say, is that Weiss is still leading. This doesn't seem to be having an effect on the way that national political pros are seeing the race. This is from Friday's Fix column in the Washington Post:

After meeting former newswoman Patty Weiss (D) recently, we are convinced that former state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords (D) is the stronger general-election candidate for Democrats in this southern Arizona open seat. EMILY's List, a group that provides financial support to Democratic women candidates who support abortion rights, apparently agrees, as it endorsed Giffords over Weiss last week.

People that met Weiss early in the race were willing to give her a chance because she demonstrated a suprising grasp of the issues and a passionate defense of liberal values. I'm not sure what bad impression she had made with the Post that caused her to deserve this sort of dis (or even if she deserved the dis), or if despite her knowledge, she paled in comparison to the more politically savvy Giffords. So, the big question is, does this poll solidify Weiss's position as a "front runner," or is it just a demonstration that we have a long race to run here?|W|P|115117451712263269|W|P|Exploding. Plastic. Inevitable.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/25/2006 12:00:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Well...El Campo is the buckstretchers...6/25/2006 12:07:00 AM|W|P| Zelph|W|P|Hey Ted,

Let me know if anyone down your way is interested in participating in the "Arizona Kos" project. I sent you an E-mail about this. We hope to have it up and running soon.6/25/2006 01:31:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Outlander-

You sure do think you know a lot about how I grew up, eh?6/26/2006 03:33:00 AM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Tucsonmark (that was a really long post to read through).

The contest features a child psychologist,

I don't know. After accessing the lobbyist report out yesterday (link here) one thing that I noticed is that quite a few of our legislators have been wined and dined by representatives of a group calling itself the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. That group is actually a front for the Church of Scientology, which believes (stemming from their religious dogma) that mental health practitioners are all united in some plot to enslave people (I went into it much deeper on my blog) but suffice to say that with these wackos apparently getting a serious ear from our legislators (who may not know who they are), an actual mental health professional (of any description) might be a good addition to the legislature.6/24/2006 08:43:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Harry Mitchell introduced a group of thirteen current and former elected Republican officials who have endorsed his candidacy. The group included former Senate president and gubernatorial nominee Leo Corbett and Tempe City Councilman Ben Arrendondo. They also included former Attorney General Grant Woods. So, what is J. D. Hayworth's response? "You've got thirteen, I've got one": failed 2002 congressional candidate Craig Columbus. Wow, J. D., I guess you've got Harry trumped there. We've always known J. D. to be such a clever and wily sort of guy; we shouldn't have underestimated him. I guess Mitchell should just fold up and go home, since legions of "Columbus Democrats" are going to bolt to support J. D. An aside here: given the number of Native Americans that are in the district, how advisible was a nominee named "Columbus"? I guess it could have been worse; his name could have been "Craig Custer" or "Craig Carson." Hayworth's campaign also retorted that Woods had at one point been Mitchell's defense attorney, so that endorsement just doesn't count. With as many fingers that J. D. had soaking in Jack Abramoff's Palmolive, he may not want to remind people of the phrase "defense attorney."|W|P|115116569885608393|W|P|J. D. Says Back Atcha Sort Of|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/24/2006 09:40:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Moderate Republicans in this state, who vote in general elections (that's one of the reasons Napolitano won) are more like Woods that you think.

I checked out your link. The worst you can say about him is that he was "living in sin"? Classy.6/24/2006 01:19:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ted is right about the moderates...if they voted more in the primaries, the Republicans would have less Huppenthals to run in the general.6/26/2006 06:06:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Bored-

At the time, I thought it was really ironic that we were running a guy named Columbus in a district with two Native American reservations.

Thinking that this was a slap at the intelligence of Native Americans is quite a stretch. I know that you've spent a lot of time posting on here to tell me what a jerk I am, but one thing you can't accuse me of is racism against Native Americans.6/27/2006 03:10:00 PM|W|P| TimWilsonAZ|W|P|I wonder if Craig actually thought throwing his weight behind J.D. would bring over Democrats. Well, at least he'll get exercise twiddling his thumbs at the next Democrats for Hayworth meeting.6/23/2006 07:00:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Following on the heels of the Sierra Club's endorsement, the League of Conservation voters announced their endorsement of Gabrielle Giffords yesterday. Look for some of our loyal posters to twist this into more proof that the League and Giffords are some sort of Republican sell-outs out to destroy American democracy. From the League's press release:

“LCV is proud to endorse Gabrielle Giffords because we see her as an environmental champion in the United States Congress, as she has been back home in Arizona,” said LCV Political Director Tony Massaro. “She knows well that the key to reinvigorating America’s economy is through a sustained effort to develop and market new and renewable forms of energy. She knows it’s American ingenuity and the American work ethic that will solve our energy challenges.”

Another interesting set of endorsements will be announced today. Harry Mitchell will be having a press conference today at 2:00 at his headquarters (115 E Baseline) to announce that "several prominent Republicans" are endorsing his candidacy. Who? What makes this fun is that we don't know yet. UPDATE: I recieved a release from Mitchell's campaign this morning saying that one of the endorsers will be former Attorney General Grant Woods. I had also heard about other names. I can't say who they are, but at least one really suprised me and they aren't all in the RINO camp.|W|P|115107283106145033|W|P|Endorsements|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/23/2006 08:49:00 AM|W|P| Jane Arizona|W|P|Harry's press conference is down the street from where I work, so I'm going. I'll let y'all know as soon as I get back.6/23/2006 09:24:00 AM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I got the day off mysteriously so I will be attending too.

See you there Jane!6/23/2006 09:57:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Are you talking about Grady Sr, or Grady Jr? As one reader helpfully told me a while back, Grady Jr is a Democrat.6/23/2006 10:41:00 AM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I think also Neil whatshisname...the mayor between Harry and Hallman.6/23/2006 10:58:00 AM|W|P| Craig|W|P|The press conference is at 2? I think I can make that one...should be interesting.

Anybody want to bet that Hayworth tries to find "several prominent Democrats" to endorse him?

The only place he might find any that will even talk to him is in the local criminal defense bar.

And even they will need a large retainer first.6/23/2006 11:31:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|A pro-choice woman gave to EMILY's list? Then EMILY's list supported her? I'm shocked, absolutely shocked.

Um...in that Dean v Kerry race, who won that?

What skeletons are you refering to? If you have anything to say, please say it. You haven't been too shy before.6/23/2006 11:47:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Well, yeah, but I was talking about the primary.6/23/2006 05:11:00 PM|W|P| Craig|W|P|At Harry Mitchell's press conference today, when Grant Woods was asked if he supported any other Democrats, he did say that he would support Gabby Giffords against Randy Graf.

No word on what he would do if/when a different Republican wins the CD8 nomination.6/23/2006 06:43:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Bored, I got the press release and it does mention Mayor Neil's endorsement...Not a big surprise there. :)6/23/2006 10:00:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Arizona Congress Watch is reporting that the Hayworth campaign issued a disclaimer claiming that the endorsement is because Woods represented Mitchell in a court case.

My first reaction to that is it gives an insight into the kind of campaign the Hayworth team plans to run. To wit:

They either knew in advance of this and had the story ready to roll (indicating they may have a mole somewhere) or they had the story on the court case already in their files (likely to make a negative ad about later) and decided to use it today to blunt the endorsement. Either way, it indicates that the tenor the Hayworth campaign as we move towards the election is going to be dirty, dirty, dirty.

Not that I would expect it to be otherwise, of course.6/22/2006 04:19:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Espresso Pundit tried to play "gotcha" with Gabrielle Giffords and accused her of "waving the bloody shirt." One thing he took issue with was her supposed "claim" to be the youngest legislator. Well, the trouble was, she never made that claim. Espresso Pundit pulls the offending quote from an article quoted on Gabrielle Giffords's website. The original article was in the local Spanish language tabloid La Voz, and the translation was posted on Giffords's campaign website:

Giffords, a 36-year-old third-generation Tucson resident, says she has all the experience the position requires. She’s young, but has an impressive political resume. She represented the 28th District in the State Senate, and the 13th District in the House of Representatives. Giffords was the youngest legislator in Arizona history.

She was, in fact, the youngest woman to ever be elected to the State Senate, but not our youngest legislator. If one were to check the Spanish, the term used is "legisladora," so there isn't a question of more precise terminology being lost in translation. The reporter made a mistake. If the Giffords campaign had irresponsibly placed this up on their website without correcting the reporter's mistake, then I could see Espresso Pundit's point. But, there, at the end of the piece, as quoted on the Giffords web site, is the following:

[Clarification: Gabrielle Giffords is the youngest woman ever to have been elected to the Arizona State Senate. She was not the “youngest legislator in Arizona history.”]

Given that the clarification was there, this is a cheap shot, even by the standards that blogs such as mine have established. The other thing that Espresso Pundit accused Giffords of was "waving the bloody shirt." I have to be a bit sensitive to such an accusation, given that 19th century bloody shirt waving is what provided the title for this blog. Espresso Pundit believes that Giffords's claims that Republicans aren't for funding childhood immunizations are tantamount to the "bloody shirt" of old. A bit of a history lesson is in order here. "Waving the bloody shirt" was first used as a rhetorical technique by supporters of the third Caliph, Uthman round about 656. After Uthman was assassinated, his supporters used a shirt drenched in blood, allegedly Uthman's, to rally the public to their cause. We get the term in American history from Massachusetts Representative Benjamin Butler, who brought the shirt from a Republican politician who had been beaten to death by the Ku Klux Klan to the floor of the House. The term came to refer to the Republican tactic of connecting Democratic candidates to succession, Copperhead appeasement, mob violence in the South, or lack of support for Reconstruction. So, why did such charges stick? Well, for the simple reason that the Democratic party in the late 1860's and 1870's was connected to successionists, Copperheads, the Klan and opposed reconstruction. As long as such charges were plausible, "bloody shirt" arguments worked. Here is Espresso Pundit's rebuttal to what Giffords said:

That's right, the Republican platform calls for leaving children without vaccinations or medical attention. Next time someone describes Gabby as "moderate" or non-partisan, remember that she claims Republicans always want to cut funding for low-income families.

Giffords does not, nor does any other Democrat, claim that Speaker Jim Weiers or any of his collegues is walking into some clinic and knocking syringes out of the hands of nurses as they are about to immunize a low income child. What Giffords says is that the Republicans, in general, have a record of not supporting state funding for immunizations for the poor, or much other health care for the poor. Except for some notable exceptions, the ones always condemned by RINOs by the Republican's activist wing, this seems to be the case. Heck, many Republican office holders and activists condemn programs for low-income familes and pooh pooh Democratic arguments for such things. Silly of us to assume this means that Republicans don't support them. If Republicans don't want to be accused of not supporting programs for the poor, a good solution is to vote for funding such programs. I know, this is pretty radical of me to say this. I need to learn to be more measured.|W|P|115101994846235339|W|P|And One More Response to My Friend at Espresso Pundit|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/22/2006 06:12:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|What this makes the point about, is that Republicans can't actually win when they point out what is true, so they try to win by the use of distortions, intentional misstatements, or on occasion outright lies.

Of course on the immunizations for the poor, it isn't that Republicans are against it, doncha know, they just want to wait until some private company figures out a way to profitably provide immunizations for kids whose parents can't actually pay for them. You know, the 'free market' has a solution for everything. (like their overall solutions for health care which have now, according to the most recent W.H.O. statistics, put us so far down in the rankings for infant mortality and life expectancy that we now are even behind Cuba in both categories-- if that isn't a source of national embarrassment, then I don't know what is.)6/22/2006 09:02:00 PM|W|P| union guy|W|P|Greg (Espresso Pundit),

If Republicans at the leg had not just voted to build a "YUMA WELCOME CENTER" to help one of their Senate candidates and allowed their leadership to block universal health care, maybe you could defend them.

As it stands, the Republicans at the leg stand for pork for re-election, but not supporting health care for low income Arizonans.6/22/2006 11:10:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Phx Kid, a huge fan of my blog...I'll convert the guy yet, has taken issue with my characterizing Russ Dove as a Randy Graf ally. In a response to one of my previous posts, he said:

Tedski do you have any proof that Dove is working for a/the Republican(s)? Please provide it. It’s kind of like saying Gabrielle Giffords is a lesbian because she served in the Legislature with Kyrsten Sinema. Maybe we should all stay away from innuendo and guilt by association unless we can produce evidence.

For one thing, Sinema, far as I know, isn't lesbian but bisexual. And, you are right, thinking that Giffords is lesbian because she worked in a building near where Sinema works would be silly. Although, your positing that two attractive successful women are lesbian probably says more about your video rental habits than it does about the character or politics of Giffords and Sinema. How's that for innuendo? Let's take the metaphor a bit further though. If I saw a woman holding hands with a woman I knew to be lesbian, I think I could assume that they are going out, right? This wouldn't be "guilt by association," since what is being assumed is the association. Back to the original question, Russ Dove was a "border correspondent" on Steve Aiken's radio show. As we know, Aiken was up until last Friday Graf's campaign manager. Dove has been with Graf at numerous public appearances, so much so that local political wags have refered to Dove as Graf's "security." Heck, this would be the equivalent of seeing two women kissing in front of The Biz and assuming that they are lesbian. Why the concern about people thinking Dove and Graf are connected? Does it sully the reputation of Dove that he hangs with a character like Graf?|W|P|115100097802698909|W|P|Innuendo and Out the Other|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/22/2006 09:12:00 PM|W|P| union guy|W|P|Sirocco,

The results aren't great? She's just a few points down from a consistent 30 year veteran of nightly TV! Gabby's reputation is so great that 30 years of name recognition can barely overcome it even before she starts running television ads and sending mail out. That's a great result.

and Fed Up,

Celinda Lake is an accomplished pollster. She would never poll for a Congressional candidate and only call one small LD in the middle of it. That "little bird" whispering in your ear has no idea what they're talking about.6/23/2006 10:07:00 AM|W|P| union guy|W|P|Sirocco,

I sincerely apologize. I misunderstood your post.6/22/2006 06:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I attended a breakfast meeting yesterday at Tucson Newspapers where candidates and politicos could hear from the editorial staffs of both newspapers and, oh yeah, meet their advertising staff too. An interesting thing for me was when the editors of the papers went over their rules regarding letters to the editor. Some may remember that the Citizen had been taken to task over a letter from Dr. Emery Wright that advocated the summary execution of Muslims. Although courts found that the Citizen had the right to publish this letter, the storm over this case may have prompted them to clarify their letters policy. Michael Chihak, the Citizen's publisher spoke and went over their letter policy, especially in regard to candidates. We all got a copy of a column he wrote back in February that reiterated their letters policy:

Candidates are bound by the same rules for letters to the editor as are others - one letter every 30 days; maximum length 250 words; no personal attacks; no libelous statements; all must be signed with full names and a way for us to contact the writer; all letters are subject to our editing.

I understand the policy. If the idea of letters to the editor is to prompt debate, then the last thing you want is a food fight. However, I asked a question: if there is such a concern about letters to the editor, why no apparent concern about the on-line comments section? Their answer: free speech! Admitedly, on-line comments are harder to police than letters to the editor. But, frankly, this is too smug and easy an answer. If free speech is a defense, or even creates an obligation to publish anything online, it begs the question, why not publish every letter? Of course they don't, and there are good reasons for that. The right to "free speech" doesn't obligate them to publish everything, right? They also stated that there were safeguards, and that they have taken down particularly offensive comments and personal attacks. When I got the chance, I went back and checked on a couple of comments that I was interested in to see if they had been taken down. They hadn't. For example, a comment attached to an article about, of all things, parking fees at the Main Library, generated this wonderful contribution to the public discussion from Steven M., a comment unfortunately typical of the direction of the comments on this article:

Greedy Bastards! I guess I won't be taking my daughter to the Main Library anymore. "One of the great scams" What!?!? One the 'greatest scams' EVER is Richard Elias being appointed supervisor by his departing lover Raul Grijalva. That is the biggest SCAM....ever. The Pima County Board of Supervisors appointing an ethics panel--with a $95,000 budget -- was just retarded (and just another one of the BIGGEST scams I have ever seen). Is Richard Alias [sic] GAY??? There is nothing wrong with that, but gay-dar readings are off the charts. I was just wondering if he was GAY.

Frankly, given the writing in some of the comments on this issue, I wonder if the writers spend too much time in libraries anyhow. The interesting part about this is that this was only the second comment; this wasn't a long discussion that degenerated into this. I've seen this with other commentaries too, and it has unfortunately become de rigeur on the Star's and Citizen's boards. Russ Dove's comments where he refers to Congressman Jim Kolbe as "tail-banger Jim" are still up on an article which doesn't even mention Kolbe. Say, what is it about these guys going on about homosexuality all the time? I'd like freewheeling discussion, but there needs to be some sort of control. Political speech is useless when the best response is in the category of "so's your mom." If it can't be published in a letter to the editor, it shouldn't be published as a comment, especially when the name calling contributes nothing to the argument. NB - Okay...I took a few personal shots. Yeah, I know.|W|P|115098767705624767|W|P|We Won't Publish Personal Attacks, 'Cept When We Do|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/22/2006 06:03:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|Well stated. I've avoided commenting on some of the stories at both papers' websites because of the aggressively attacking tone and beligerently hostile, uncompromising content of other comments.

I think people like to have a forum to air their opinions that wouldn't be acceptable in other forums. Even though registration is required and first names and last initials are displayed in those comments, it seems many of the commenters feel a certain sense of anonymity that makes it "safe" for them to be as offensive as they want. I've seen at least two "Anonymous" posts on those comment threads.

Of course, there are others who air their controversial opinions (nothing wrong with controversy) proudly and give their full names in their comments. Still, there's not really all that fine a line between advancing political (or any other) discourse and just attacking those with whom you disagree. Either you're civil or you're not. What's so hard about that?6/22/2006 06:28:00 PM|W|P| Jane Arizona|W|P|Say, what is it about these guys going on about homosexuality all the time?

And Kolbe's not just a homosexual... he's apparently a pitcher.

Methinks we have a closet catcher.6/22/2006 08:22:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I would almost say that there is a serious case of projection going on but...that would be ever so impolite.6/21/2006 09:45:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This is me doing more catching up on the things that have ticked me off over the last four or five days. The Star has a new political reporter named Daniel Scarpinato. I've met him, and he seems to be eager to do a good job. I've actually liked what he has gotten in the paper so far. However, I have an issue with his Political Notebook column from last Saturday. It contained this item:

Just be careful. Last time [Howard] Dean got overly ambitious about winning (remember his speech after a disappointing showing in the 2004 Iowa caucuses when he screamed "Yeeeeeeeearrrrrrhhhhh!"?), he yelled his way right out of presidential politics.

No, Daniel, I forgot completely about the scream. It's not like they played it on CNN six-hundred times that week. It's not like it became the fodder for every cheap joke by wanna-be political comedians for months afterward. You get it, Dean screamed. It's funny, right? Dude, I know you can do better than that. UPDATE: So, I open up the Weekly and there is Jim Nintzel doing the same bit. Sheesh. Hopefully, we have the "Dan Quayle can't spell 'potato'" jokes way behind us by now.|W|P|115095206043730519|W|P|It Really Isn't That Funny When Leno Does it Either|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/22/2006 08:18:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|As a person with a dire lack of spelling ability, I have some sympathy with Dan Quayle's mistake.


As for the Dean scream, you know, a lot of those same stupid media people thought that Dean would bolt the party and do an independent run. Not only did he not do that, but he gave way with a lot more grace then I bet any of them would have.6/21/2006 07:21:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|My adoring public has apparently noticed that I haven't been posting much. I did warn y'all that this might happen. Of course, you are all over me, but Mr. T goes unscathed despite the rampant sloth he has demonstrated on his blog. I would like to point out in my defense that my other blog has been updated. Yes, it isn't politics, but by not going over there, you are missing my witty and brilliant prose directed at such topics as the World Cup, local music and Tucson Roller Derby. I suppose I have an awful lot to catch up on. For example, I've let Espresso Pundit slip with a few without responding. How the heck did I let that happen? Last Friday (yeah, days and days ago) he wrote a bit about what he feels were intemperate comments made by Rep. Kyrsten Sinema at the Yearly Kos convention in Las Vegas. Apparently, she complained about serving with "overweight white men." Overweight white men all over the country are deeply wounded by this statement. This has been part of an ongoing conservative "meme" over the last couple of weeks since folks in the mainstream media finally decided to call out Ann Coulter on her hateful statements against anyone that doesn't share her politcs. The idea, I suppose, is to dig around for statements that a liberal made that are as offensive as what Coulter says on a daily basis. Of course, Sinema isn't being invited on "mainstream" talk shows so she can say such things, and it was probably an out of context joke. Even assuming that what Sinema said was deeply offensive, it is hard to understand how isolated statements from a few liberals here and there justify Coulter's statements insulting 9-11 widows, calling for the killing of Rep. Jack Murtha and advocating the forced conversion of non-Christians. I'm not sure why white men need protection all of a sudden. European males have had a pretty unchallenged place on the top of the world's political heap since a Hapsburg fleet defeated the Turks back in 1571. One of the beefs I have with conservatives is that some have this tendency to sell any gain by blacks, hispanics, women or whoever as some sort of loss for white men, or even worse, an assault on them. Looking at the full context of Sinema's statement, at least as quoted by the American Spectator (The American Spectator complaining about intemperate and intolerant statements is a case study in "glass houses"), it seems like her main point is that it would be nice if the legislature were more reflective of the ethnic diversity of the state. I may have worded it differently, but I don't find this concept racist or intollerant. Espresso pundit brings up the case of Kyle Hindman, a representative who used the word "wetback." I don't know about this particular case, but I do know that the use of that word has a connotation that Hispanics, legal, illegal or born here, are some how outsiders who don't belong here. The fact that a man who made public policy held these views is a problem. Sinema called men who were overweight and white "overweight white men." Not exactly the same, is it? I think that Sinema's statement was out of context. I mean, she doesn't dislike all of the overweight white men she serves with, only the incredibly mature ones who use the House TV cameras to check her out. NB - Interestingly, if you click on the link above, you find that the Hapsburgs have their own web page. Who knew?|W|P|115094761676721312|W|P|Yes, that's Me. All Neglectful and Everything.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/22/2006 06:20:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|Excellent post.

She said something that was true and used no offensive language or epithets.

Something that has bothered me quite a bit about the hot button debates we're seeing in Arizona - immigration and same-sex marriage - are mostly being debated by straight white people.

If you want to create good public policy, shouldn't the subjects (or in our case more often than not, objects) of that policy be actively involved in the policy-making process? Sure, there are people of color and LGBT people holding elected and appointed office. But for the most part, as Kirsten has said, it's overweight white men who control the debate.6/18/2006 07:15:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One reader noted that Dwight Leister's website was changed over the last week or so such that the year is no longer listed as 2006 (although the domain name still says "2006"), reflecting the reality that he did not qualify as a candidate in this election. Apparenly, Leister still thinks of himself as a candidate, as reflected by this comment in the online version of the Daily Star:

As the Democratic Candidate for congress in cd8 that is for securing the border and holding employers accountable what is anti-humane about that!

This was dated June 17th, three days after the deadline for Leister to file his signatures. Dude, I hate to break it to you, but you aren't a candidate anymore. Sorry, maybe next time you should think about actually collecting some signatures. The main article was about Charlie Johnson, the stealth candidate that Randy Graf supporters are running in the Democratic primary. Graf's people should work on checking the rap sheets of their own staff before they try to muck up the Democratic race, really. Johnson, like Leister, doesn't seem to want to do press interviews or be seen in public, but he did actually file signatures, so good job there, man. Why all the secrecy? When Graf associate and convicted felon Russ Dove first approached the Democratic party about getting the voter file for Johnson, he refused to even name the candidate. Given that democracy is a public exercise, it was hard to understand why a candidate would not want his name out there. Maybe they think this is some sort of clever strategy; who knows?|W|P|115064119850353836|W|P|Did Dwight Read the Memo?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/19/2006 08:33:00 AM|W|P| Jane Arizona|W|P|Write-in!6/21/2006 06:01:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|You mean, to run you actually have to RUN? Perish the thought.6/17/2006 06:42:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Randy Graf announced this morning that Steve Aiken is no longer a member of his campaign. Graf is saying that he had no idea how bad the charges were; he had originally said that they were no more serious than giving an underage person beer. Really, no one on your campaign knew how bad it really was? Here is what Jade Stokes, a Graf campaign aide, posted last night to Blake Morlock's original article:

I, as Randy's chair on his Sr. Advisory board, investigated the whole story. And found no merit on it's face. Steve talked about it on his radio show, and in his book, everyone who knows Steve and Randy knows the details.

So, this guy had talked about this on his radio show, in his book and Graf's "senior advisors" knew the full extent of the charges, but Graf was totally unaware, eh? Graf's campaign is a confederation of all sorts of iffy characters. When I was on staff for the party in 2002, a couple of us discovered that Stokes was using fraudulently using press credentials to tape Democratic party events for the Republicans (we made a call to the station that had hired him, and they weren't happy to see their equipment used this way). Graf is apparently still happy to have a convicted felon like Russ Dove working for him, despite his history of intimidating Hispanic voters and making threatening statements to opponents. The Graf people are already spinning this as coming from the Steve Huffman campaign. Why? Because nothing is ever a Republican's fault, it's those nasty "LIEberals." In Graf's odd view of the political spectrum, Huffman is a liberal. I'm waiting for Hillary Clinton and Michael Moore to be behind this too. Easy to blame Huffman, really, since the Democrats would have rather launched this little rocket round about September 13th. I don't know though, if I were Huffman, I would have waited until about August to do this. Graf has fired this guy, and by the primary, it could be old news and no good to Huffman at all.|W|P|115055353139465794|W|P|Graf: Steve Who?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/17/2006 04:48:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|He's doing both...that's one of the reasons the Democrats were unwilling to give Dove access to the voter file.6/18/2006 07:12:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|toc-

Let's be fair, he's not a pedophile, but an ephebophile.6/16/2006 08:15:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, well, well. In a bit of schadenfraude that some of us wish would have come after the primary, it turns out that local talk show looney and Randy Graf campaign manager Steve Aiken was convicted of charges steming from his having sex with teenagers back in 1996. What's worse: he was working at a program for troubled youth and these were clients. I know that that probably isn't any sort of legally aggravating factor, but given what I do for a living, it really bugs me. Of course, Aiken protests that he was "wrongly convicted." I'll lay off the irony of a law and order conservative complaining that any innocent person is ever arrested and convicted. Well, come to think of it, I work with a lot of people that have been in and out of prison. You know, when you ask them, hardly any of them did anything wrong either. I took a quick perusal of Aiken's website, and I find the usual tripe about how us liberals are leading the country straight to Hell, plus, I find a link to a group that he apparently leads called Men of Valor Ministries. According to their website, they are the "practical work after Promise Keepers," and he quotes himself on the website saying "It is my highest honor to serve my Lord & Saviour, Jesus Christ, by being a spokesperson for this most worthy ministry." Oh, Steve, why do you see the mote in your neighbor's eye but fail to see the beam in your own? Yes, we lefty Catholics know the Bible too. In a further bit of ironic fun, the first response to the item about the conviction is from a certain Russ D. Mr. D. (No relation to Chuck) says:

If we bow to dirty politics, as we have for the last 20 years, at the hands of "tailbone banger jim kolbe" we deserve the life we will have – a life of slavery. Get your head out of the sand, find your backbone, and protect your tailbone and your wallet. "tailbone banger jim kolbe" is now and for as long as I have known him a liar! Choose ye life or death - light or darkness - truth or untruth, whatever the choice you make, no choice is not an option. You either choose the Truth or you are a part of the lie! Signed russ dove, an American Citizen who says, “I have had enough!”

This is, of course, another Randy Graf campaign associate, Russ Dove. Dove also has a felony conviction, this one for grand theft. Yep, good to know that Graf is keeping this country safe from those criminal aliens across the line. We need to protect all the jobs for criminals here. NB - I was going to put the "sic" after all of Dove's mispellings and bad grammar, but it was just too much.|W|P|115051588740552473|W|P|No Wonder Why Graf Wants Guns in Bars: We Need Protection from His Staff!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/16/2006 11:25:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|That is the first time I have heard that phrase.

And anyone who takes advantage of the young people in their charge (like this case) should be still in jail.6/17/2006 01:18:00 AM|W|P| Craig|W|P|Like Ken Bennett's son, Clif 'Broomstick' Bennett?

He's....oh, wait. Never mind.

This stuff makes you long for the good ol' days, when a scandal involved freely consenting adults in the Oval Office.6/17/2006 10:12:00 AM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Cpmaz...that is the thing that bugs me about the Republicans (one of the many anyway) when they do something wrong and hurtful, it is "oh well youthful high spirits, or simply something that has been blown out of proportion..." but when we Dems do something that is nowhere near as bad, it is impeachable.

The other thing about Clinton's scandal over his bad behavior with a 24 year old woman is that we could pay attention to the scandal because the man was actually doing a decent job of running the country.6/17/2006 05:39:00 PM|W|P| Craig|W|P|Elizabeth -

You wrote "the man was actually doing a decent job of running the country. "

Part of me has always thought that's what the Reps hated most about Bill Clinton.

He was actually good at the job, and his competence made them look bad by comparison.6/20/2006 05:27:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Oh yes Cpmaz6/16/2006 07:23:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The dispute between Basha's and the United Food and Commercial Workers has been heating up as of late. Some of you may remember a few weeks ago that UFCW members meeting with Basha's employees (an act protected under federal law) were arrested at the request of management of an AJ's in Phoenix. The UFCW has been holding informational pickets over company health policy. Basha's has raised the health care premiums they charge employees, which are now higher than they are at unionized chains in the state. Apparently, management believes that employees shouldn't be given information about this. Basha's representative Mike Proulx has sent a letter to Basha's employees that uses the same tired arguments that companies have used for decades: the unions are just after your dues, and darnit, we just couldn't do all of these wonderful things for you if the union was standing in the way. Of course, if workers had been buying that one over the last century or so, we wouldn't have had the fourty hour work week, workman's compensation or, yes Mr. Proulx, employee health benefits. Proulx finishes his letter to employees as follows:

The union knows they've got nothing to offer us, so they'd rather take potshots and hurt us as much as they can. In taking such a position, the UFCW shows their true colors. You see, the UFCW does not hold your welfare uppermost in mind; its highest priority is DUES DUES DUES even if they put us out of business and cost you your job. Together, we will successfully met this challenge. We are proud of how hard we have worked and the market share we serve in Arizona. We are proud to have in our ranks the best grocery experts in the industry, you. You have my complete assurance that we will never force a union on you, and we will exercise all of our legal rights and vigorously prosecute the UFCW to the full extent of the law and all illegal activity.

That last bit sounds like a bit of a threat against union-sympathetic employees, doesn't it? Also, what is this about the union being "forced" on the employees? We live in an "open shop" state where no one can be forced to join a union, and even if they could be, it would be hard to "force" employees to join a union when the organizers are being arrested. So typical, a group wants to come in and represent the folks at the bottom, but they are the bad guys and the corporation is the put-upon helpless victim.|W|P|115051306800501856|W|P|Union Basha-ing|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/16/2006 11:22:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I got a letter from the union about organizing Bashas. I think that the local grocery store is organized near my house since it is not a Bashas...but I certainly will not be shopping at any of the chain's stores until they are union.

And unions need dues, how else can they pay for the lawyers to solve the 9 million frivolous lawsuits the management throws at them or the workers?6/18/2006 10:22:00 PM|W|P| Daniel R. Patterson, Editor|W|P|Eddie Basha, an AZ anti-union dem.

Basha's needs a union, esp. as the major store in AZ indian country.6/15/2006 06:49:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, I was all ready to write a post about how Francine Shachter, Bill Johnson and Dwight Leister were unable to file. I had even checked the Secretary of State's website around eight o'clock and didn't see their names. I noticed in the corner that the list hadn't been updated that morning. Darn...the snark has to wait, I thought. Well, Shachter and Johnson did file. However, Leister did not. Question for you: was Leister actually running? Did anyone see him at a single campaign forum or public event? Did anyone sign a Dwight Leister petition? Was he actually campaigning, or just sending out poorly written e-mails saying insulting things about his opponents? Leister's website is still up like he's a for-real candidate. He hasn't updated it to reflect his lack of filing, nor has his confusion of the semi-colon and colon been fixed, nor has his spelling of Pancho Villa's name been corrected. I take particular offense to this, considering my grandfather shared his nom de guerre.|W|P|115042349236664651|W|P|Late Filings|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/15/2006 08:03:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|maybe he just wanted the attention?6/16/2006 03:57:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Tom, it is not just ignorance of southwest history but a general lack of historical knowledge period that causes some of the issues with immigration today.6/15/2006 07:18:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Gabrielle Giffords campaign yesterday won the endorsement of EMILY's List. EMILY's List only endorses pro-Choice Democratic women, but there are three pro-Choice women in this race, two in the top tier. Had Patty Weiss not been in this race, Giffords would have probably secured this endorsement a heck of a lot sooner. Giffords fits the profile of an EMILY's List endorsement: she's been in office with a record of supporting their issues and winning campaigns. This may also be an indication of which campaign the DC folks finds more viable and credible. Of course, an EMILY's List endorsement is not a guarantee of victory. One may remember the last time they came into an Arizona race big: Sen. Elaine Richardson's run against then Supervisor Raúl Grijalva. Interestingly, they had to dial back their early endorsement of Richardson in that race when Lisa Otondo jumped in. Richardson's campaign made many mistakes: they ran too far to the right, they were relentlessly negative, but their biggest one was assuming that big name endorsements, like those from national organizations like EMILY's List, took the place of local grassroots support. I don't see Giffords's campaign making those mistakes, especially since she has been taking advice from Grijalva in this run. Look for Weiss's campaign to spin this as "yet another group of Washington insiders" trying to muscle their way into the race. This would be more credible had they not been coveting the endorsement as well. Weiss's campaign last week announced that Nina Roosevelt Gibson, FDR's granddaughter, is endorsing her. I know this is important to them, because I recieved three, yes three, separate e-mails about this. Not three copies of the same e-mail (I get two copies of every e-mail from the Giffords campaign, they've got to do something about that...), but three separate releases. In Gibson's endorsement letter, she talks about Social Security as an important part of her grandfather's legacy. The "Social Security Reform" that the president touted only a year ago is something that he would prefer we forget about, of course this is easier since he never actually presented a plan. Weiss could get some traction reminding retirees and near-retirees of this attempt to gut one of the most important pieces of the social safety net. It couldn't hurt to remind folks that the incumbent, Jim Kolbe, has been at the forefront of Social Security decimation for years. Also over the last week, Giffords announced that the Arizona Education Association endorsed her. This was to be expected, a reward for her support of their issues in the legislature. It would have been difficult for a candidate with no record to counter that. One may remember that last month, the Tucson Federation of Teachers, a smaller organization but affiliated with the AFL-CIO, endorsed Weiss. I won't even get into that whole NEA - AFT split...I don't get it either.|W|P|115038388063345778|W|P|Who Is This Emily?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/15/2006 04:49:00 PM|W|P| Jane Arizona|W|P|EMILY is checking out Ellen Simon, who is running against Rick Renzi. Wouldn't be surprised if they endorse her.6/15/2006 07:02:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|"More than one union rep is reported to have felt 'strong armed' as others have reported."

I'm not a union member, but that's exactly how I've felt by the big-named and powerful supporters of former Senator Giffords. Especially early on, they were very derisive and dismissive to me whenever I mentioned there were other Democrats who had declared their candidacies.

(And while I also like Jeff Latas too, I haven't thrown my support - such as it is - behind any horse in the race yet.)

I genuinely like her and appreciate her work in the Legislature, but her supporters - especially her early, wealthy, powerful ones - really turned me off by making the case that her nomination was inevitable and she is the best chance for the Democrats to reclaim the seat in 22 years.

Whether that's true or not, call me a purist. I think there's a lot to be said for the primary process, at least at the federal level.6/21/2006 03:55:00 PM|W|P| DBeamer|W|P|American Federation of Teachers is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. The NEA wants to act is if they are a part of organized labor but refuses to join AFL-CIO.6/14/2006 06:33:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, the final filings have been posted to the Secretary of State's website. As I expected, neither John Verkamp nor Leonard Clark filed. I had been approached months ago by a Leonard Clark supporter who had a petition, but since then, I heard nothing except posts on various websites. Verkamp tried to make quite a splash when he jumped in, but I never got the impression that either he nor his supporters understood how hard it was to get signatures. The story I heard was that the signatures would somehow materialize during anti-war rallies. No such luck. One candidate that filed that suprised me was former Graham County sheriff Richard Mack. I had no idea he was planning to run. He's got a bit of a name id, although it is useful to point out that Graham County voters kicked him out of office a decade ago because his relentless grandstanding interfered with, well, you know, law enforcement. My understanding is that he moved to Utah and served as a county sheriff up there for a while. If he agressively campaigns, does he cut into Jon Kyl's right wing support, or does he just make Kyl look moderate by comparison?|W|P|115033641407255834|W|P|Sound and Fury and All of That...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/14/2006 08:41:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Let the games begin!6/14/2006 08:55:00 PM|W|P| Craig|W|P|You know, there may be a dozen or so people active in AZ politics that make Jon Kyl look moderate. The Libertarians may have found one. Richard Mack may appeal to some who would otherwise support Kyl, especially in the more rural areas of the state.

Having said that, I don't expect Mack to make much of a difference in the race; a few fringe votes in the sparsely-populated areas aren't going to cost Kyl his job,

Pederson's appeal to centrists could.6/14/2006 11:36:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|Interesting slate of candidates for the House in LD28...6/13/2006 05:11:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The filing deadline is tommorrow, but many candidates have already filed. Gabrielle Giffords, for example, filed yesterday with great fanfare and bragged that she has signatures in every single precinct in the district. Even Elgin and Portal, I guess. Patty Weiss filed on the first day, hoping that being the first to file would create a press splash. Unfortunately, it also happened to be the same day as Bush's immigration speech and, my memory fails me here, there was a big development in one of the copious Washington scandals. This sucked out all the political news oxygen that day. For those who don't know: candidates must file a certain number of signatures, based on the number of registered voters in their district, to get on the ballot. This requirement applies even to incumbents. Note: I wasn't able to find out the numbers for the Libertarian candidates, mostly because I did not know their names. There is also an independent in CD 8 named Jay Quick who filed 6042 signatures. Congressional District 7 Democrats (Minimum: 641) Raúl Grijalva - 2878 Republicans (Minimum: 338) Ron Drake - 824 Joe Sweeney - Not yet filed Congressional District 8 Democrats (Minimum: 665) Gabrielle Giffords - 6952 William Johnson - Not yet filed Jeff Latas - 1631 Dwight Leister - Not yet filed Alex Rodriguez - 1155 Francine Schacter - Not yet filed Patty Weiss - 2051 (Also filed a supplement, not included) Republicans (Minimum: 759) Frank Antenori - 867 Randy Graf - 2045 Mike Hellon - 1400 Steve Huffman - 1098 Mike Jenkins - 1324 (Also filed a supplement, not included) The number of signatures can be looked at as a sign of early grass roots support. Looking at it that way, it looks as though, among the CD 8 major party candidates, Giffords and Graf have the best organizations right now. You may remember that a few weeks back, Ron Drake was advertising on Craig's List for signature gatherers. This has apparently led to rival Joe Sweeney to claim that Drake was, get this, hiring illegal aliens to gather his signatures. Oh, that Joe, such a card. Huffman and Antenori happened to file at the same time this morning, which led to Huffman giving Antenori a bit of grief for his small number of signatures (you know how we men are.) Um, Steve, Mike Hellon filed about 300 more than you, and his campaign is officially classified as "hapless." Heck, Mike Jenkins filed more than you. I'd try to stop calling attention to that if I were you. People will think you are compensating. The big question: will Johnson, Leister and Schacter actually be filing? If Leister isn't able to file, will he blame Martin Bacal again?|W|P|115024688674462181|W|P|Early Candidate Filings|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/13/2006 06:45:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Of course not Ted, he is going to blame me since that also makes no sense and I told him to shut up once.

Now this is not on the SOS website at the moment because he just filed but Harry has submitted nearly 3,000 signatures. I did notice this strange name "Prezelski" on the website but it was some dude named Tom so I have no idea who that is. :p6/13/2006 07:34:00 PM|W|P| Thane Eichenauer|W|P|The Libertarian Party candidate for AZ congressional dictrict 5 is Warren Severin.

Mark Yanonne is the Libertarian Party candidate for congressional district 3.

Other Libertarian candidates for office can be found at http://thelfactor.org/.6/13/2006 10:04:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The question I have about the libertarians is why not run Kielsky again? Y'all do want to pick up votes right?

And there is life beyond soccer Mexilina? Are you sure Ted is ready for that information? :p6/14/2006 09:12:00 AM|W|P| union guy|W|P|Don Goldwater filed this morning, but says he's weeks away from having his $5 forms completed.6/14/2006 06:18:00 PM|W|P| grannuaile|W|P|Verkamp missed his minimum by about 500 signatures. Said if he'd had 2 more weeks he would have had it.

Maybe he should have followed Chuck Gray around today.6/09/2006 07:10:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Auditor General is accusing Pima County of misspending some $5 Million in shared gas tax revenue. $1 Million apparently went to tchochke, trinkets, gimmies and, apparently, dry cleaning. Unfortunately, our so-called friends in Phoenix will probably use this as an excuse to mess with transportation outlays to Pima County. They become angry about this because no government in Maricopa County has ever wasted a dime on such frippery. A little noticed part of this is what the other $4 Million was used for. That money was spent on transit. Trouble is, this money can only be spent on transportation, not transit. I realize that the words look almost alike, and mean almost the same thing, but transportation is supposed to only mean roads. Lots of 'em. State law actually prohibits the use of gas tax money to be spent on transit programs. Our two latest transportation/transit plans that made the ballot down here both relied on a regressive sales tax. This became a persuasive argument against the plans in both elections. Some, like my fellow blogger Daniel Patterson, supported the latest plan but had a huge problem with the funding mechanism. Unfortunately, local goverments that want to fund transit have little choice but to fund such things except through a sales tax because of this antiquated idea that roads are the only solution for transportation problems. The irony is that many users of transit would probably be the working poor that take the biggest hit from a sales tax.|W|P|114990657681564100|W|P|But, Transportation Means Moving Things From Place to Place, Right?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/10/2006 05:40:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Wait a minute Ted, are you trying to claim that people should not always drive big wasteful SUVs/oversized Pickup trucks on roads with only one person in the car at the time?

I am shocked! Shocked I tells ya!6/12/2006 11:30:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Yes, I recieved another call correcting me on that. I got the numbers from the Star article, my mistake.

The main point I was trying to make was about state transportation money not being able to be spent on transit.6/09/2006 07:48:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|My time that I waste typing screeds on here will be wasted watching the World Cup for the next few weeks. Not that I will stop posting, it's just that the posts will be more rare, and thus more precious... I will be rooting for our Yanks, el Tri, and the Biało-czerwoni...we'll see how it goes.|W|P|114986469315045061|W|P|But, But...It's the World Cup|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/09/2006 12:48:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|So far ECU has one point and the Irish announcer guy has gone bonkers at least twice.6/09/2006 02:36:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|That "Irish announcer guy" is Tommy Smyth with a Y. He does go bonkers, but its cute because of his accent.

His partner in the box is the English Adrian Healy, who used to do New England Revolution broadcasts. What is confusing is that New England used to have a goalkeeper named Aidan Heany...go figure.

One of their other broadcasters is a Scot named Derek Rae, who used to not have a Scotish accent when he broadcast domestic games, but now that he is doing international games, he talks like Groundskeeper Willy.6/10/2006 04:12:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I am annoyed that I only got to see the tailend of Sweden vs T&T which was 0-0 but T&T won. *shrugs* If I knew more then I could understand that one but okay. :)

And yes Ted, it WAS cute because of his accent. Guys with British Isles accents are automatically +5 cuter.6/08/2006 07:35:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Word has come down through the transom (Radio Free Europe...) that the Patty Weiss campaign has brought in a fella named Andrew Myers, whose most recent job was with Janet Napolitano, to run her communications operation. Weiss's current communications director is former reporter Rhonda Bodfield Bloom. It would be easy to over interpret this. Bodfield Bloom is staying on, so there is no "firing" here. If there are people out there that are concerned that Weiss's name hasn't been in the paper enough, well, welcome to Southern Arizona's journalistic reality. It has been difficult for most of the candidates to break through. My guess is that Myers has been brought on because he is more experienced with being inside a political operation than Bodfield Bloom is, although she covered politics for a few years and even interviewed me once. She doesn't remember though... Another over interpretation I've heard is that this is somehow an indication that Napolitano has "taken an interest" in this race. Doubtful. For one thing, this is still anyone's race, with either Weiss or Gabrielle Giffords being the front runner, and Jeff Latas being the scrappy underdog looking for an upset. I doubt that the governor will get involved at all, it's too risky. The other thing is that Myers isn't part of the governor's inner circle, and had only been working for her for six months (his previous work was in other states). When Napolitano nomenclator Mario Diaz went over to Jim Pederson's campaign, that was an indication that she took an interest in the race. This move, however, just seems like a political operative moving from one job to another. But, this is an indication that both the leading campaigns are "professionalizing." (Giffords has also brought in a new communications director from out of state) As more money gets raised, there is more of a chance for campaigns to hire professional operatives from outside the circle of trusted local friends. This also happens as national interest goes up, check writers in other states start asking, "Who is working for you?" and they'd like to hear the name of someone they have heard of, or at least the name of someone who worked for someone they have heard of.|W|P|114977922438082885|W|P|Inside Baseball|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/11/2006 07:30:00 PM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|Agree with many of your points, Fedup.

I haven't seen yard signs, T-shirts, coffee mugs for any CD 8 candidate, although you can order Latas stuff through a link on his website. I like the doggie shirt.

I am seeing more bumper stickers, mostly Graf and Giffords, a few Latas, even fewer Weiss, and no Huffman.

Finley donates to both sides of the aisle and has for years. You can look her up specifically at www.opensecrets.org. Be sure to do last name first (screws me up every time). Her giving to Huffman would be consistent and doesn't mean a thing.

I would be interested in what others consider an "attack." I shared my thoughts at DataPort, and per that, this lawyer thing is an attack. There is more about Hollingsworth, SB1065, etc. at DataPort.

Anyone have an idea when the tv ads really start? I thought they would have begun by now.6/07/2006 09:49:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage has lost the vote in the Senate. Great, now this means that those liberals that run the federal courts and our state legislature will force me to marry a man.|W|P|114969918631195032|W|P|Heaven Forbid!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/07/2006 08:46:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|As a liberal, I can assure you Ted, I have no interest in making you marry a man. Just like I have no interest in forcing you to have an abortion if you do not want one.6/07/2006 10:24:00 PM|W|P| Craig|W|P|Can we compromise? Split the difference, so to speak?

How about we force him to marry Ann Coulter?

At the very least, he should be able to teach her how to write coherently.

End (for now) wisea$$ attitude. :)6/08/2006 12:58:00 AM|W|P| Craig|W|P|Exactly right, Mexilina.

During the campaign/election season, they would rather have the public debate be about this (and immigration!) than about minor issues like the war in Iraq (coming soon to Iran), corruption, record budget deficits, .... and so on.6/07/2006 06:42:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I heard a rumor about CD 8 from Phoenix. I always have a couple of questions when I hear from Phoenix about CD 8. First of all, could this person telling me find the Warren Ball Park if I dropped them off at the Lowell traffic circle? Second, is this so second hand by the time it has travelled up I-10, crawled back, then fallen on my lap that it lacks any resemblance to accuracy? The rumor I heard from Phoenix yesterday (no one down here seemed to have heard it) was that supporters of Jeff Latas were about to make a stink that there are Democratic district chairs supporting Gabrielle Giffords, thus violating the "rules" against "neutrality" (more on that one later). This rumor seems to be bunk for a couple of reasons. It turns out, there are no district chairs on Giffords's supporter list, although I did find the wife of one. I found none on Patty Weiss's list. There is one on Jeff Latas's list, District 26 Chair Juana Mase, however. I have my doubts that anyone that actually knows what is going on in Latas's campaign would try to raise this issue, given that his website lists several party activists along with their affiliations. For example, Latas's campaign manager, Steve Cody is listed with his title as the Secretary of District 29. It is the fact that he has attracted some party officials, who after all, are committed grass roots activists, that have given his campaign the juice that it has, despite his lack of strong fundraising. This also raises the rumored oath of neutrality that party officers take. Guess what: there isn't one. The only prohibition in the party's by-laws is against the Executive Committee taking a stand in a primary, presumably because this body speaks for the party. The by-laws do advise party officers to be careful with endorsements, however. Many do, for example a district chair usually stays neutral in a legislative race in his district. Former Pima County Democratic chair Paul Eckerstrom waited until he stepped aside as chairman before publicly declaring his support for Patty Weiss, but despite what people think, he was under no obligation to wait. (Eckerstrom may have also felt a bit burned by what happened in the city council race in 2005, where his support for Nina Trasoff (what is it with you and reporters, Paul?) was heavilly criticized.) After my brother was appointed to the legistlature, one activist actually told me that I was prohibited from helping him, unless I resigned as state party vice-chair. The fact that this was a person that didn't support my brother and didn't support me when I ran for vice-chair a few months before had nothing to do with it, right? Which brings up the issue with these sorts of endorsements: how you feel about their propriety depends on who they go to. When they are for your guy, it is an indication of community support and how serious your campaign is. When they are against your guy it is unfair, an indication that your rebellious campaign is being repressed by the Man. As Democrats, we always like to imagine ourselves being political guerrillas, wandering the hills, outremere renegades taking shots at the establishment. This even applies when the establishment is on our side. Feeling like we are rebels makes us all warm inside, and frankly, motivates us to knock on a few more doors and make a few more phone calls. One thing that was funny after Raúl Grijalva's victory in 2002 was the revisionist history from some of his supporters that somehow the state party was lined up against him. I was on staff for the state party that year, and I can tell you that the folks in the office up there were rooting for Grijalva (I can say that now), 'cept for one that thought that Jesús Romo was cute (I am not making that up). Heck, they needed him because of his incredible grass roots machine. We always have a need to feel like we are tearing down the establishment, whatever the facts say. There is also often a sour grapes aspect to the issue of endorsements. Back in 2000, State Democratic Chairman Mark Fleischer endorsed Sen. Bill Bradley for President. I was a Bradley supporter, and a Fleischer supporter, but in retrospect, this move was inadvisable. Many movers in the party criticized Fleischer for not remaining neutral in the presidential primary. However, these same people had only a few weeks before been pressuring Fleischer to endorse Vice President Al Gore. Something else that people don't consider: the money folks that form the "establishment" in both the party and the community down here are outside of the party structure. If tommorrow, Vince Rabago were to endorse Dwight Leister (don't worry, he never would) it wouldn't result in one dime of money swinging his way, and not one "big name" would reconsider their previous postion. There is an over-estimation of the power of some of these folks. They are often effective organizers, and can bring in volunteers, which is important, but that is it. The establishment money folks that support Giffords, Weiss, and also Latas, are supporting them regardless of what a party official says. Some campaigns spend an awful lot of time complaining about this, though. I haven't heard this complaint from Latas supporters, but I have heard this from the candidates outside of the top three, two of whom seem to spend an awful lot of time posting on blogs. Frankly, if a candidate loses, it isn't because some vice-chair turned the establishment against them.|W|P|114969186318112684|W|P|Um...Hold Off On That|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/07/2006 10:40:00 AM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|There is no formal prohibition against endorsements, as you make clear. And people can work for candidates with primary opposition (i.e. collecting signatures) regardless of party position.

I am an officer (though not the chair) of my county party. Since I occasionally comment on candidates, I am very careful to never discuss my party position on my blog so that it is very clear that my opinions are mine alone and not those of the state or county party (and whether I support a Democratic candidate or not in a primary, if I get a ballot signature petition then I will circulate it regardless of whether I endorse that candidate or not-- because getting those out is part of my duties in the position I'm in.)

That said, if I want to make endorsements, I have complete freedom to do so, and have done so, speaking strictly for myself (no party position noted on the endorsement).6/08/2006 07:19:00 AM|W|P| Daniel R. Patterson, Editor|W|P|Hope this rumor is bunk. Latas is a good candidate and should stick to running a good campaign to woo primary voters, not attack speculative support for Giffords.6/09/2006 10:47:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Check my post...I was saying that the rumor is false, and I wasn't attacking Latas at all.

I have since found out a little more about this, and I found that the person making hay about this was a supporter of another candidate.6/05/2006 04:38:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This blog has come to be known in some quarters as "Gabby Central." Yes, I am supportive of Gabrielle Giffords, who has been a friend of mine for decades. Although I get a bit (well, more than a bit) preturbed by the untruths and vitriol thrown around on here by some supporters of other candidates, I actually like the candidates they support. Saturday, I attended an event put on by the Stonewall Democrats. The only congressional candidate to make it was Jeff Latas, although Gabrielle Giffords's sister Melissa attended. Latas gives good speech. He spoke with a very personal passion towards issues involving civil rights and the war in Iraq that I wish other candidates would be willing and capable of doing. He brought both issues back to his service in the Air Force, where he was obliged to protect this nation and its constitution. My trouble with him is with his lack of experience working on these issues, but he is an articulate spokesman on them. I get frustrated with some of his supporters because this man has an incredible story to tell, and I wish that they would help him tell it, instead of trying to tear other people down. I hope that if he loses this primary, he stays involved and runs for office later. Arizona needs more like him.|W|P|114955197511628523|W|P|In Praise of Jeff Latas|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/05/2006 06:32:00 PM|W|P| Michael Bryan|W|P|Perhaps that is always the mark of a worthy politician: that their supporters are generally less admirable than they are. Of course, the opposite is also true of the worst candidates: that their supporters are generally more decent people than you would expect from the candidate's example.6/05/2006 07:44:00 PM|W|P| union guy|W|P|Every supporter of Gabby that I've talked to agrees that Latas is a genuine progressive and a great candidate. I sincerely hope that he considers a run for the state legislature or some other office that he can win and use as a stepping stone to continue to move up.6/06/2006 08:50:00 PM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|Gretchen's remarks about the ludicrous salaries are "spot on" and point to a huge issue.

Frankly, I think the "negatives" being fired at all of the candidates (well, certainly the three most viable) are rather petty. Based on the info I have, not tons but not trivial either, I like and respect all three. Maybe I am being fooled (it does happen--my ex did a fine job), but I think all three are honorable human beings. I am 100% behind one of them on September 13th.

I so much want the democrat to win that for me it is most about 1) who will be strongest in the general, and then 2) who would do the best job in Washington.

Most of the negatives I see don't have much to do with either. I certainly don't connect with remarks like the "hiding out in Oro Valley." What? Some of the stuff launched against Giffords seems like Twilight Zone.

And, yes, completely concur about small number of bloggers.

Totally off topic, but anyone know where Graf went? His website still says HQ at 5739 Speedway. That place is abandoned and available.6/07/2006 08:59:00 PM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|My admittedly limited radar has heard that serious money will be spent telling republicans that a September vote for Graf is a November vote for a democrat, and the push will be for Huffman.

Sorry again, but 5521 E. Speedway is ABC Radiator. They pretty much agreed that Graf is extreme and Huffman is probably ok, but that Giffords is way more attractive and will make the news "funner to watch."

Graf has left the building.6/11/2006 07:37:00 PM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|Just for sake of completeness, 5521 Speedway is correct for Graf. He had no signage up the other day.

Those in need of radiator repair who wish to learn more about Graf are now in a position to multitask.6/05/2006 07:21:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, apparently the Republicans would have liked to have done more on immigration over the last six years, but they couldn't. Despite being in total control of the federal government for most of George Bush's two terms, and getting just about all they want in other areas, they haven't been able to do anything about fully staffing the Border Patrol. It's because of Bill Clinton. That's right, despite his being out of office and his party having minority status, it's his legacy that made it impossible for Jon Kyl and his Republican friends to do a darned thing about it. These poor guys, I guess they can't do anything right. Here is Jon Kyl on Phoenix area KFYI radio last week:

Well, Bill Clinton did, in fact, impede a lot of progress. He had a person working for him as head of INS, whose name is Doris Meissner, who drug her feet throughout the entire time that we were trying to get more people on the border. And that's why it took seven years instead of five years, but we finally got the number of Border Patrol (agents) doubled. But, yeah, he wanted to take 'a breather' -- I think that was his phrase -- he said 'it's time to take a breather on adding more Border Patrol.' And we said, no, it's not time to take a breather, it's time to accelerate, to increase the number of Border Patrol. So you had a lot of people in Congress then that were at least forcing the issue, but because he and his head of the INS were dragging their feet, it took longer than it should have.

It's ridiculous enough for Kyl to blame the Clinton administration, when he and the Republican congress have failed to hire even a fraction of the agents suggested by the 9/11 Commission a few years ago. But, as it turns out, that the Clinton administration went on what can only be called a hiring binge if you compare it to what has happened in the past few years when we have been supposedly more "security conscious." (It looks like Kyl tries to have it both ways, taking credit for the increase under Clinton. If he could get an increase under Clinton, why can't he get one under Bush?) Even the conservative Washington Times, no friend of Bill Clinton or any Democrat for that matter, last week ran a story entitled "Arrest of Illegals Falls Off Clinton Pace." No equivocation there. They pointed out:

Although Mr. Bush last week said his administration has caught and returned 6 million illegal aliens, that's actually a drop from any five-year period during Mr. Clinton's administration, the briefing says.

So, the Republican congress has refused to allocate the money to hire and train the necessary number of agents, arrests have fallen off since Bush came into office. But, hey, gotta blame someone, so it's all Bill Clinton's fault.|W|P|114951845484338860|W|P|Jon Kyl: It's all Bill Clinton's Fault|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/05/2006 01:48:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|I suppose if Janet had been working as part of a government entirely under the control of her party, I guess the metaphor would follow. Kyl is part of a strong legislative majority that has gotten its way on most issues, so it is absolutely ridiculous to blame someone that has been out of office for six years.6/05/2006 09:33:00 PM|W|P| Daniel R. Patterson, Editor|W|P|Clinton was mostly lame, but Kyl is an ultraright lunatic who must be booted this fall.

Our 'get tough' election year Gov. called for Nat. Guard on the border, and now we have more and more contributing to a non-solution of militarization.6/06/2006 09:44:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well PhxKid, she did finagle a budget surplus and fund education, so I guess she did manage to do some leading...6/02/2006 07:08:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|There are no politicians in this country that get the unquestioned praise from the national media that Arnold Schwarzenegger gets. A typical interview with him makes the sniveling adoration that Chris Matthews gives to John McCain look like the trash-talk thrown around by boxers at a pre-bout weigh in, or at least like journalism. The low point of this for me was during the recall election, when Katie Couric was interviewing a woman who had accused Schwarzenegger of groping her. Couric, in what seemed to be an attempt to discredit the woman, asked her "Are you someone who doesn't support Schwarzenegger in this election?" Well, duh. My answer would have been, "Well, Katie, I only vote for candidates who sexually assault me." One example of this was yesterday's edition of Scarborough Country. I really don't like Joe Scarborough, never have. His self-satisfied-know-it-all demeanor represents every thing I don't like about the flotsam that got washed in to our nation's capital in the 1994 election. I only caught the introduction to Scarborough's program, but I managed to read the transcript. Scarborough was making an issue of Schwarzenegger's call up of the national guard for border duty in California. Scarborough said in his introduction:

But while the president keeps pushing amnesty, the Governator is sending troops to the Mexican border.

I thought this was a bit funny, representing Schwarzenegger's call-out of the guard as somehow a contrast with Bush's policy. Considering that it was precisely what Bush himself had called for, I'm not sure that this makes him that much of a rebel. Later in the show, Scarborough said:

Also today, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered 1,000 troops to the Mexican border, ending a showdown with the White House.

This bit, along with the earlier quote, implies that Schwarzenegger had been pushing for the use of the guard, which is precisely what didn't happen. Schwarzenegger himself had objected to the use of the guard, which he regarded as overstretched and ill prepared for this sort of duty, and he demanded that the federal government pick up the cost. The other funny thing is that Scarborough acts as though Schwarzenegger is opposed to broader aims of Bush administration immigration policy. His own statements on immigration call for enforcement, comprehensive reform of current law, and no "amnesty," a word I put in quotes because the meaning of it has become rather pliable among Republicans lately (Witness: Jon Kyl's new ads). He even brags about working with Diane Feinstein. This is a far cry from his open support for the Minutemen a few months back, perhaps he realized that an Austrian overstaying a work visa is just as illegal as a campesino hopping the fence near Sasabe. I don't know why Scarborough would try to make it look like Schwarzenegger agrees with him, he doesn't even do this with the president. Maybe Scarborough has stars in his eyes for the man, and feels the need to paint himself as in agreement with him even though it is so obvious that Schwarzenegger is solidly in the other camp from him on this one. Or maybe he doesn't want to tell his viewers that he actually disagrees with someone they consider a hero. Heck, I don't know. Of course, the silliest thing is that Scarborough is heaping praise on Schwarzenegger for doing exactly what Gov. Napolitano had done the same day. I'm sure that Scarborough will be talking up Janet too, right?|W|P|114930366206149255|W|P|Gov. Schwarzenegger is a Bold-Take-Charge-Man-of-the-People-Rebel, by Doing Exactly What Gov. Napolitano is Doing|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/02/2006 09:25:00 PM|W|P| Daniel R. Patterson, Editor|W|P|Yes, and Gov. Janet is such a 'girly man'.6/03/2006 06:50:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Um, I don't think you read my post. Schwarzenegger is doing no more that what Bush was asking, that was my point.6/02/2006 06:50:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A response from Gabrielle Giffords to last week's "Real Democrats for Real Mudslinging" letter hit our mailboxes yesterday. She refutes the same points that I refuted earlier, which will probably lead to more allegations from supporters of other candidates that I am a paid shill for her campaign. I ought to call her and demand a check, I guess. But, she brings up a point that I neglected in my response: her support of the Clean Elections system. One of the allegations made in the "Real Democrats..." letter was that Giffords refused Clean Elections money in her races for state legislature. Truth to tell, I would have rather she had run as a "Clean" candidate as well. But, she was also someone who was very supportive of the system in the legislature, where she helped fight off attempts to defund and weaken the system. Why is merely taking the money a show of support? I ask this because I was involved in the campaign two years ago to fight off an attempt to gut the system. For those who don't remember, there was an attempt by group of businessmen, including Jim Click, to push an initiative to defund the Clean Elections system. The comedy came when it turned out that the initiative was illegal, and all those millions went down the drain. Brings a tear to the eye, don't it? I helped out with a few "house parties" and was in touch with the folks running the campaign down here. One frustration that I had was that some candidates and office holders that took Clean Elections money were nowhere to be found when the time came to defend the system. Heck, just look at who it is in the legislature that tries to knock the legs out from Clean Elections; it seems to mostly be folks who took Clean Elections money. One of the most prominent of these is Rick Murphy, who hapilly took Clean Elections money when he ran for election, but apparently doesn't want anyone else to. Interestingly, Murphy's bill was supported by Judy Burges, Laura Knaperek and Jerry Weiers, who are happily taking Clean Elections money this year. At least Murphy isn't taking the "corrupt" (his word) money this time. On the other hand, there were folks like John Loredo, who didn't take Clean Elections money, but were very supportive and helped the campaign to save the system. Phil Lopes was very supportive as well, even though he was ineligible to participate in Clean Elections due to his lack of an opponent. I can also point out that Giffords's opponents never have taken Clean Elections money either. Yes, that would be silly, but no sillier than not looking at what she has actually done to support the system.|W|P|114925968671320316|W|P|Just Because You Take Clean Elections Money...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com6/02/2006 01:01:00 PM|W|P| union guy|W|P|George,

This is from section 16-956 A2 of the Clean Elections Act passed by Arizona voters:

"The (Clean Elections) commission shall invite and permit nonparticipating candidates to participate in debates."

Gabby was invited to participate in each of the Clean Elections debates by law.