Steve Leal, that Steve Leal. He's just like the Hezbollah, you know?
Well, that's the impression one would get from a series of "Something to Consider..." ads being run by local developer Bruce Ash. The ad tries to draw comparisons between innocents being killed in Middle East violence to the good people of Tucson being denied the right to work for low wages and no benefits at Wal-Mart.
Yeah, I don't quite get the comparison either.
What's worse, in an interview, Ash took things further by saying that just as Hezbollah is a proxy for Iranian Mullahs, Leal is a proxy for the UFCW. Nice to know that Ash has such a high opinion of unionized clerks and stockers. He'd better look for non-union stores from now on if he wants to avoid dirty looks at the checkout lanes.
This isn't the first pro-Wal-Mart ad campaign that drew such offensive paralells. Some of us remember the campaign up in Flagstaff, where Wal-Mart compared the UFCW and neighborhood activists to Nazis.
By far the silliest aspect of this whole thing is the portrayal of Wal-Mart, a company that makes billions of dollars and is a world-wide player, as some sort of defenseless victim of the big bad unions. Give me a break.
Ash had a similar negative campaign (run through a committee called "Independent People Like You") in the 2003 elections against former Mayor Tom Volgy, who was making a bid for his old seat, and Councilmember José Ibarra. The business community wanted Mayor Bob Walkup to win re-election, which narrowly happened, but some openly wonder if Ash's negative campaign is what kept Walkup under 50% of the vote. Some of them are concerned that tactics such as this will make it harder to find compromises on projects in the future, especially given the more liberal direction of the present council.
In his ad, by the way, Ash asks people to call Leal's office to tell him to "stand-up to the unions." Leal's office number is 791-4231, and his e-mail is steve.leal@tucsonaz.gov. Call him or e-mail him to tell him to keep up the good work and stand with working people.
NB - If you want to hear the ad, the Arizona Daily Star has it here.|W|P|115437428764045634|W|P|Plus, I Know That Leal Prefers Sushi to Hummus Any Day of the Week|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Eli Blake|W|P|One of the biggest scandals is how low Wal-Mart pays its employees, and then charges such high premiums for medical coverage that even where there is supposedly coverage, there isn't because the employees opt out.I really admired what the Chicago city council did last week and ignored the threats that Wal-Mart would leave Chicago if they had to pay a living wage (hopefully Mayor Daley will sign it). Considering how hard it is to keep Wal-Mart out of some communities, maybe that will be the best way to do it-- let them come, but pass Chicago-style living wage ordinances.
Of course, if Mr. Ash is so much comparing Wal-Mart with the Lebanese, perhaps someone should ask him if they have any contracts to buy clothes from sweatshops in Lebanon.
Eli Blake|W|P|Obviously, this is a 'cybersquatter' who pays scant attention to the real news.Remember that Don Goldwater is still desperately stumping for $5 bills so he can qualify for public financing, and a recent article had he, Gary Tupper and Mike Harris with $11,000 cash on hand combined.
The idea that the Don Goldwater campaign could actually pay this guy for a domain name is ridiculous. He's obviously confusing the Goldwater campaign with a campaign that has some money.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|ouch Eli. :DThat's a pretty sophisticated and expensive practical joke.This person, who may not even be affiliated with Napolitano's campaign, did not need a set of degrees from MIT to pull this off, or even a BA from ASU. GoDaddy.com will reserve a domain name and set you up for around $25 bucks. After that, setting up a "re-direct" is pretty easy, easier than actually setting up a website. Frankly, the Republicans in this state, who after all keep Nathan Sproul employed, have a lot of nerve accusing Napolitano of "dirty tricks." NB - Patterson compares Napolitano with Richard Nixon. Here's something I don't get. Republicans will tell me that Nixon was a great president and that what he did was no big deal, but then in the next breath tell me that whatever made up scandal they find out about a Democrat makes them "as bad as Nixon." Which is it, guys? Also, Patterson complains that the media "let this slide." I would buy that one if he didn't learn about it from, and link it to, an article on the Arizona Republic's website. CORRECTION: In the original post, I refered to e as the natural logarithm. It is actually the natural base.|W|P|115411744271584097|W|P|Oh, Come On!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Craig|W|P|I don't think it's all that big an issue either, but I am curious.Who really set this up? It's sort of a ham-handed move, and while many words have been used to describe the Governor (particularly by Republicans) 'ham-handed' isn't on the list.
In fact, it reeks of a two-fer dirty trick - Goldwater gets zinged, and Governor Napolitano gets blamed.
Michael Bryan|W|P|dongoldwater.com... hehheh, you said 'dong'. Dong Old Water....! hilarious...Seriously though, Domains by Proxy is the equivalent of a dead drop. The Goldwater people could have easily ginned this up themselves to get some ink and smear the Gov.
Domain by Proxy's EULA has a caveat: they won't protect your privacy if their services are used to "Engage in morally objectionable activities, including but not limited to those which are child pornographic, defamatory, abusive, harassing, obscene, racist, or otherwise objectionable." This could be considered harrassment. If Dong, er... Don's people are so concerned, they should complain to Domain by Proxy and demand the registrant's info.
That they don't and won't should tell you exactly who is responsible. I know for a fact how easy this is to do. I once redirected www.NetworkForEvil.com to GOP.com. Worked great until the GOP figured it out somehow and blocked their servers from responding to that domain. To this day I wonder what the heck that staffer was looking for at NetworkForEvil.com... looking to sell what was left of his soul, perhaps?
Eli Blake|W|P|OUCH!!!The number e is the natural BASE for exponential functions. A LOGARITHM is properly defined as an exponent itself, or if taken as a function, is the INVERSE of an exponential function. Hence the natural logarithm is the power that you would raise the base e to in order to obtain the argument of the logarithm. What you have is indeed e ^ -1, which is however not a logarithm at all.
Can't argue with your deep political insights, but I've got an argument with your math.
Tedski|W|P|Darn...it's now fixed, Eli. Zelph|W|P|Sproul is working for Len Munsil among others.To put it simply, Jones is not a forger, but he did lie. Heck of a campaign slogan. The Arizona Democratic Party has a website up detailing their version of events here. I checked it out, and I saw something that just went to show what a tangled web politics here in the Old Pueblo can be. The case that was referenced with regards to the circulator's signature is one called Brousseau v. Fitzgerald. The protagonists in that case were two Democrats running for the State Senate in what was then District 14 on the East Side of Tucson, Pima Community College Boardmember Georgia Brousseau and Jack "The Color TV King" Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald had some teenagers walking petitions for him, and had other volunteers who were walking with them sign the back. The court found in that case that the people who signed the backs of the petitions did not "witness" the signatures, and thus the petitions were thrown out. The case is often referenced in petition challenges, and has even been cited in cases in other states. Here is where it gets into Kevin Bacon territory: Brousseau lost the general election that year, but tried to make a political comeback of sorts three years ago by attempting to get appointed to the then-vacant District 29 House seat. She was unsuccessful, losing out to...my brother. Many of you know that I serve on the Tucson Sign Code Committee. I was chairman for a short time before I was ousted and replaced by...Jack Fitzgerald. I tell people I live in the biggest small town in America. NB - Oh, and the seat that Brousseau and Fitzgerald coveted was occupied only two years before by Jim Kolbe, who was running against Rep. Jim McNulty, whose son chairs Gabrielle Giffords's campaign. Both Kolbe and McNulty talked to Patty Weiss that year, no doubt.|W|P|115402137213688517|W|P|Jonesin'|W|P|prezelski@aol.comSubstantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that Jones presented petitions to the Arizona Secretary of State on June 7, 2006, which he signed as the circulator, knowing that he did not obtain the signatures in his presence as required by A.R.S. § 16-321.
Tony GOPrano|W|P|Rep. Russ Jones is a honorable man, unlike you share/the/same/brain dems. When are you guys going to get it? BTW, I got my Clean Elections Early Voting Guide and I must say, Teddie, you have one ugly mug....I thought I was ugly but.....Forgetaboutit!!!We're not saying that Hayworth is anti-Semitic - only that he should choose his heroes more carefully.Then today, E. J. Montini writes a column entitled, guess what, "Should Hayworth Choose His Heroes More Carefully?" And do I get an ounce of credit? No. Anyhow, the interesting thing for me is the comments of J. D. Hayworth's co-author, Joseph J. Eule:
If Henry Ford is off limits on Americanization, Thomas Jefferson must likewise be off limits on liberty because he owned slaves. I hope we haven't reached the point where Thomas Jefferson is no longer welcome in polite society.Eule misunderstands the problem here. The problem wasn't that Ford was being quoted as a buisnessman, or even as a plutocratic union buster. Ford was being praised for his views on "Americanization," a term that Hayworth chooses to associate with Ford's definition of that word. Ford's "Americanization" was closely associated with his anti-semitism; they were in fact, inseparable in his mind. To borrow Eule's metaphor, we can admire Jefferson's stirring words on the liberty and dignity of the individual, but, like Ford's anti-semetic views, his views on slavery are unwelcome in polite society. By the way, instead of apologizing, or even clarifying his views on Ford, Hayworth chose to accuse the writers of the Jewish News article of a political hack job. Typical J. D.|W|P|115388058879364158|W|P|Further Proof of this Blog's Growing Influence on Arizona Politics and, If I May Humbly Say, Western Civilization|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Craig|W|P|Tedski - getting credit isn't all that it's cracked up to be - I was quoted in a Hayworth press release. Ugh. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|did he tell you that he had to agree to disagree? Eli Blake|W|P|Actually, Jefferson's views on slavery were surprisingly enlightened. As a representative of Virginia, he recognized both the hard fact that the southern economy was largely built on slavery, and that the matter of slavery was a major unsolved problem and with the rest of the founding fathers he wrestled with it, and they collectively made half steps towards abolition, such as banning the importation of slaves after 1808. The goal of course was a single union and they hoped that the problem of slavery could be put off and eventually solved at a later date (as it eventually was, because the superb system which they designed has failed exactly once-- and ultimately over the matter of slavery).Jefferson's writings on the inherent contradiction of trying to build a better and more free society when slavery existed show a man who was perplexed with what he considered an unsolvable problem. He recognized that it was a moral wrong, and he had hoped to free his own slaves at his death but the debt which he died in prevented it.
However, Jefferson should not be considered as, for example, George Washington or Andrew Jackson, early Presidents who saw nothing wrong with slavery and believed that it would exist as a permanent institution.
Tedski|W|P|Fred, is that you? Jane Arizona|W|P|I love it, but it looks like a bit too much work for my blog. If they ever come up with a way to make the names automatically "highlight", like those annoying double-underlined links you see on some pages, I would be all over that.- Alex Rodriguez will drop out of the race and endorse Jeff Latas.
- Rodriguez will drop out of the race and endorse Patty Weiss.
- Rodriguez will drop out of electoral politics and don a mask and cape to carry on his fight for justice, because Republicans are a superstitious, cowardly lot.
Rex Scott|W|P|Bravo, Sirocco! Weiss had intimated a connection between contributions and legislative votes by Giffords in the Tucson Weekly, in a post on Daily Kos and on the John C. Scott Show...without bringing forth a shred of evidence short of the ONE committee vote Giffords explained very well at the debate. A single vote does not a pattern make, Patty!I was in the audience at the debate, too. Gabby's shot at Patty WAS well-received, as Sirocco says, because the audience of political junkies knew about what Patty had been stirring up on the Internet, on the radio and in the pencil press for several weeks. She got taken down a few pegs and richly deserved it.
Negative campaigning has an effect when it confirms thoughts that are already in the public mind. No one in the Democratic Party has the image of Giffords that Patty and her campaign tried to foist on them. That's why they are unable to cut into the broad-based support Gabby has from all segments of the party.
x4mr|W|P|Roger,Don't know for sure, but Diamond is a huge supporter of Huffman, as is Click.
I heard late May that a Weiss victory on 9/12 was part of the Huffman strategic plan and that action items were associated with it. Could not learn the actions.
That's why I got a little excited by this $14K to Swiftboat someone, although realized that may have just paid for the ad already produced.
We both know the anti-G bloggers who blast away about how she can't win the general. That isn't what Huffman camp is thinking.
Giffords would rather face Graf. Huffman would rather face Weiss.
I don't think either will get their wish.
x4mr|W|P|Of course the notion of a bloody and expensive primary on one side would delight the other side, and some of this could be going on.Rich folks like Diamond, Finley, Click typically spread it around according to some design. Who is giving to whom just doesn't excite me. Campaigns desperately need funds and will take whatever they can get unless it is REALLY tainted, like the KKK or something.
I think it's become a "hot topic" because Weiss has been loud about it, and at Nucleus Giffords smacked back. Now she can smack harder.
We've had fun sharing views and speculating. Reality is rapidly approaching, and my prediction:
1. Blogosphere is about to be invaded by a bunch of new folks starting to pay attention and doing google searches that lead to blogs.
2. The depth and breadth of the work done by the Giffords camp will emerge and her nomination becomes a slam dunk.
3. "Somehow" the Huffman camp will do what it takes to get the CD 8 GOP masses to believe a vote for Graf is a vote for the democrat in November.
Giffords vs. Huffman neck and neck to the very end.
But hey, what do I know?
x4mr|W|P|Excellent questions of course, and I have no answers.But, since we're in the unfounded rumors department.
The businessman was exceedingly confident about Huffman and that Huffman wanted to face Weiss and would actually take action to try to make that happen.
When I said I'd heard the R's wanted to face Giffords, he cut me a look suggesting I was a complete idiot.
We were bored and waiting for our respective flights. For all I know he got on the plane and started laughing to the guy next to him, "Guess what I just told some stupid democrat!"
x4mr|W|P|OK, Fedup.For the Huffman rumor here, I am only reporting what I heard at an airport over a drink with an active republican who does real estate loans (uh, what does Huffman do?).
He considered it idiocy to think Giffords is the easy target, and said H campaign felt same way.
If you think he is full of it, fine.
Shifting to my views. The funds raised and the growing list of endorsements are the ice above the water. They are the tip of an infrastructure and organization that neither Jeff nor Patty possess. Why wouldn't a politician like Huffman get this?
Come on, Fedup, you really think Weiss is stronger against Huffman in CD 8?
Couldn't give a ____ about a poll conducted in April. OF COURSE Weiss would look stronger than H or G at that time.
Rex Scott|W|P|The most endorsements from both organizations, indviduals and elected officials. The highest amount and the highest number of contributions. The most petition signatures submitted. Support from the left, center and right of the party. These are ALL strengths Giffords brings to the table in November. No other Democrat has them. If Huffman or any other potential GOP nominee thinks they are better off taking on these attributes, than their reasoning skills are equal to those of the GOP House leadership that has worked with Bush to run this country into debt while increasing the hatred of Americans around the world.
On another note, I can't compare this district to the one in California that Bilbray won and will hold in November. CD8 is more moderate and has demographic characteristics (more rural, more minorities, more independents) that sets it apart from CA-CD50. The GOP can't count on the same campaign that helped them there winning here.
Last, I still feel that Huffman's money can not overcome the dilution of his hopes by the presence of Hellon and the two minor candidates in the race. The "anyone but Graf" vote is split and Graf's backers are "true believers." What we need to plan for is an energized conservative base that is pumped to support Graf, Munsil and Kyl...and hopes to cut into the edge Democrats usually need in Pima County to offset big GOP votes in Maricopa.
Nevada won out in the competition to be the caucus after Iowa. There is still the possibility that Arizona can have an early primary, maybe even the first after New Hampshire like in 2004.
I would allege that the Nevada Democratic Party plied the Democratic National Committee with hookers and booze, but now that Las Vegas is family friendly and everything, I guess the only allegations I have left are bribes of tickets for Céline Dion and Cirque du Soleil. I shudder to think.
Even though Arizona will not be as early on the calendar, the fact that another state is in there among the "Dynamic Duo" already spreads the wealth a bit. Any attention that is taken off of Iowa and New Hampshire diminishes their importance, and that helps out the later states. The geography helps us a bit too, a candidate travelling to Nevada may find it relatively easy to take a side trip here for a primary that would be coming up a few weeks later.
With New Hampshire and Iowa a bit less important, it may also lend attention to a slightly later state like ours. A candidate may need to win Arizona to build momentum from the now slightly less important first two states, or may need us as a last ditch must win after losses in those states.
I doubt any decision on the primary date will be made until after Janet Napolitano's re-election.
NB - Speaking of Nevada, we apparently have a Republican candidate for State House this year named Travis Junion. I just find that funny. That's all.
I think his advisors will tell him that that is not the right way to wear the vest, right?|W|P|115368505901688636|W|P|It's Nevada|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I think Nevada was a lot smarter then you think. They probably offered to NOT give the DNC any tickets to Celine Dion and any of the other terrifying shows. :) TimWilsonAZ|W|P|I agree with kralmajales. Arizona was an infinitely better choice than Nevada. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|AZ does not have Harry Reid though...wonder if that had an impact. Tony GOPrano|W|P|I'm sure they pick Nevada over Arizona since Nevada is so much more liberal than Arizona. Plus you were correct, Nevada's HO's are nastier than AZ's HO's. Your running in the wrong state Teddy....maybe you should move to Vegas....take your show on the road. You would fit right in with all the wackos there...haha!!!Fergitaboutit!!!!
Eli Blake|W|P|I think Elizabeth nailed it.Nevada has the majority leader in the Senate, while if they had the early caucus in Arizona the national media folks would be spending most of their time here talking to Republicans about John McCain.
On top of which, at that time of year, most of the attention in Arizona will be focused on Lute Olson and the Wildcats, while UNLV has been mostly boring since they got rid of Tark and cleaned up the program.
Wages are being supressed by "Mexicans." Hmm..notice he doesn't say "undocumented" or "illegal." And worst of all, so he says, Tucson is in store for more "Mexican" congressmen. I'm glad this guy didn't try to file. We didn't need him. This is my trouble with the anti-Immigrant crowd. I hear their arguments about depressed wages, security and higher crime rates; I don't agree with them, but at least it seems to be about policy. But some of them, like this guy, keep talking and eventually it isn't about "illegal aliens," it starts to become about "Mexicans," then it's a short trip to "Mexican-Americans." And then they wonder why people would actually think they are racist.|W|P|115366409553757371|W|P|But Dwight Leister Assures Us He Is Not A Racist|W|P|prezelski@aol.comIt is not just who is the biggest in Arizona but wages being surpressed by MEXICANS is beginning to hit home! Take a look at your southern Arizona Congressman and get a feel for what Tucson is in store for!
Liza|W|P|Tedski,I'm really glad that you brought this up because flagrant, in your face racism is absolutely where all this immigrant bashing is headed. It makes sense, of course, because things like this tend to expand and escalate especially when people need simple explanations and scapegoats. Also, those who have been silent racists get an opportunity to be more vocal when the opinions of the masses move closer to their own.
I grew up in the Jim Crow south and I can say that I have seen racism at its ugliest. And, what I'm seeing now is a just a blatant and shameless resurgence of the same thing, this time against Mexicans.
Any reasonable person who thinks about this somewhat objectively can easily figure it out. A racist is not going to distinguish very much between an illegal immigrant, a legal immigrant, an American of Hispanic descent, or anyone else who looks Hispanic. They all get painted with the same tar brush, make no mistake about it.
One of my Republican neighbors told me recently that illegal immigration is the root cause of all the problems in this country. I asked this guy what he thought about US forieign policy in the Mideast and he said its just not as important as illegal immigration. This is pretty typical coming from your average Fox News/conservative talk radio fan. And this is the price we pay for allowing Republicans to create a major distraction issue for each and every election.
In 2004 the right wing was gay bashing, now they're immigrant bashing. This stuff doesn't go away. Their loyal followers carry it with them for many years, perhaps their whole lives, and it translates into racism, hatred, and discrimination. Really ugly stuff reminiscent of the civil rights era in the south.
Good post. A very important and overlooked issue.
Arizona normally holds a presidential preference primary for both parties, where voters go to the polls to cast ballots. But Arizona Democrats did experiment with the more freewheeling caucus approach, where voters gather publicly to debate and choose a candidate, in 1996 when Clinton won.Only one Democratic presidential primary has been held, and only two have been held for the Republicans, who skipped the last contest and have traditionally made their selection at a closed convention. I don't think this adds up to "normally." But aside from that, the process in 1996 was not a "free wheeling caucus," but yet another "Firehouse Primary," where the party printed ballots and voters would vote and walk out. The process being considered here is one that calls for far more participation from regular voters, and will be the most "free-wheeling" we have ever had.|W|P|115350935903887671|W|P|So Which One Is It Where the Pricks Are On The Inside?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
TimWilsonAZ|W|P|I'm a bit skeptical of an Arizona caucus, probably be more comfortable with a primary. Either way, though, Arizona is a great choice for a caucus/primary between IA and NH. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|THANK YOU!!! I am so tired of people acting like Iowa and NH were/are the only states to be the first to be able hold presidential contests during the primary season.Once upon a time they were not first in the nation. And there is absolutely no reason for other states not to be first. The reason they were first seems to have changed to "um because have done that for X years and they have a good lobby." Maybe by having another state inserted (AZ cuz we are a major emerging talent state) into the process we can break their stranglehold and start having states that now reflect America more have a say first.
shrimplate|W|P|Basically good ad, but way too positive.No mud, no name-calling, no outright lies... how are people even supposed to know it's a campaign commercial?!
Prudent Man|W|P|Mr. Pederson's ad said he'd end price gouging by the oil companies. Sounds like a scare tactic considering the several investigations in Congress have determined the oil companies aren't colluding or gouging.It's a suprise - a rabbit out of the hat - and tens of thousands of voters will know who I am.Hmm. Dear readers, any ideas on what this might be?|W|P|115339960446305256|W|P|Hey Rocky...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Framer|W|P|I'm guessing it has something to do with a visit and endorsement by Cindy Sheehan (or someone of like stature).It's just a guess, however.
Art Jacobson|W|P|Dear BooHoo,You say, "Latas is the only one that has the credentials that this frame can't stick."
I'm not sure what those credentials are. He says he knew that we were facing a phoney war, but what was the nature of his protest while he was in a position to make a significant one?
How did he oppose the war from within the Pentagon?
x4mr|W|P|I have a reaction when someone telegraphs that they "have a surprise coming" instead of just surprising us. I imagine the idea is to generate more conversation prior to the event, but he sets himself up for possibility of disappointment.At any rate, Framer is probably in the ballpark with either a visit or endorsement of some significance. Jeff is going to have to hit a huge home run to go up against all of the singles, doubles, triples, and HR's that Weiss, and especially Giffords, have been smacking into the field.
Rex Scott|W|P|Democrats can win this seat if their candidate sounds reasonable and appealing on ALL issues, not just Iraq. We will need to keep our voters in the fold and also attract independents and Republicans unhappy either with their nominee, or with the direction of the national party, or both. Given the likely choice of Graf and the national purge of moderate or liberal Republicans, the chances of a Democrat winning CD8 (which IS still a District where Republicans have a sizable lead in voter registration!) are all the more plausible. The "cut and run" argument is not going to work because most voters are already opposed to the war and feel that it was a mistake to get into Iraq. Where they are hesitant about trusting Democrats is with regard to the overall issue of national security. That is why we talk about how the Iraq war has made that country into a breeding ground for terrorists and how the cost of the war has diverted resources from the global war on terror.
I realize that the Paul Hackett phenomenon and has caused many folks to believe that it will take Democrats who are veterans to beat the GOP on this issue, but that is far-fetched, especially since Hackett lost his race in Ohio! Latas does not have the resources to win and his "angry man" rhetoric comes off as shrill and partisan, which makes him less likely to attract voters outside of his camp. I hope that his supporters, who are clearly dedicated and hardworking, will bring their energy and passion to the camp of the eventual nominee, but I don't see Latas as someone who can unite Democrats or attract voters from outside the party, no matter what surprise he is set to spring on us.
x4mr|W|P|I wouldn't describe Patty's fundraising as striking out, and Giffords fundraising?!Discount the various endorsements all you want, and some are bigger hits than others, but they are not strikes.
I like Jeff, but something really has to alter for him to stand a chance on 9/12.
Nor do I think Graf will prevail in September. My prediction though not worth a nickel: It will be Giffords against Huffman and a nail-biter all the way to the end.
Rex Scott|W|P|George-I would not describe either Gabby or Patty as "meek," nor would I call someone who I have never met in person "ignorant," as you do me. However, I used the term "angry man" after hearing Jeff at a house party, hearing him on the radio and then seeing him live at the Nucleus Club debate. He plays well to partisans that agree with him, but that doesn't translate to support across this broad and diverse district.
I understand the concerns and issues that drive his candidacy and know that the eventual nominee will have to address them to build a broad coaltion, but Jeff doesn't strike me as someone who can speak persuasively or articulately on all the issues, nor does he convey an ability to appeal to those outside the populist Left, especially those for whom Iraq is the main issue in this campaign.
Make a case for his ability to win in November in CD8 that sounds plausible, resist the temptation to engage in name-calling when you do so, tell your candidate to lower the tone of his voice and you may sell some folks outside of the DFA/PDA wing of the party!
Jane Arizona|W|P|I'm going to guess it has something to do with the Web. Purely a hunch. x4mr|W|P|Chris,If Graf wins 9/12, Patty or Gabby are in great shape. These "meek" ladies will eat the kook for breakfast.
Huffman is more slippery. If he prevails 9/12, he will get all the kook votes (what else are they going to do?) plus more central folks. I am not in a position to say anything about his campaigning, but I hope you're right.
Hmm, Jane, hadn't thought about the surprise being a web thing.
Are you Stacy?
x4mr|W|P|Anyone go to the Tea thing yesterday? Would be interested in what happened. The Daily Star reported on it, but what do they ever say?By hits and HR's I simply refer to those components of the race that can be measured in solid fact, which is money (raised, on hand, from where, who, etc), announced endorsements, paid staff, and to the extent it can be gauged, volunteer hours and activity.
Of course that isn't all that matters, but the other stuff quickly becomes opinion.
The 4:25 fightback video caught me by surprise. Impressive and a sign of new thinking. Taking a week to piece together the 8:18 NC video to frame it to Latas advantage was also more sophisticated than I would have predicted, as was the quality of that footage. It must have been the high end camera dead center in the room, and folks that produced that clearly understand the power of the editing suite.
I have to hand it to Latas camp for some outside the box thinking. Maybe he does have a surprise.
Liza|W|P|The political landscape just changed and it remains to be seen what effect there will be on the CD8 election.I am referring, of course, to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The one where they are "defending" themselves by destroying the infrastructure of an entire nation and targeting civilians to pay for a border skirmish initiated by Hezbollah.
Well, the initial "attack" on Israel may not look like a "9-11" but it may as well have been because the neo-cons are going to use it as a "catalyzing" event to justify a war with Iran. There's no question about it. The neo-cons are literally being reborn after the debacle in Iraq and all their other failures. They are making the case, apparently successfully, that Iran is behind the July 12 Hezbollah border attack.
Well, we know the neo-cons want the war with Iran and that the nuclear fuel issues have not convinced Americans that war is the only answer. Well, things have changed. The neo-cons have a window of opportunity to exploit given that Americans get mostly pro-Israel news from the corporate media. Also, no one seems to be overly concerned about the Lebanese civilians who have as much control over Hezbollah as we have over George Bush. This is a better case for war with Iran than enriching uranium because Iran, obviously, is the root cause of instability in the region and democracy cannot flourish with Iran in control.
I'm not sure how all the campaign rhetoric will change but you can bet it will because the neo-cons are back in full force.
Weiss and Giffords might look a bit overwhelmed by it all, not to mention Graf and the rest of the Republican herd.
I could be wrong, of course. Maybe here in Arizona we'll still be immigrant bashing in September, who knows?
Either way, Jeff Latas is the right person to represent CD8. I'm more convinced of that than ever.
Liza|W|P|phx kid,I needed to write all that. Although its tragic, its somewhat of a vindication for me because I made the Iran connection right away and no one seemed to agree. I said, "this will be used to justify a war with Iran." Now its all over Washington DC. Sorry you had to read all that, but here it is just for you - GO JEFF!
Kralmajales,
I am so distressed about what is going on in the Mideast that I am at a loss for words which is not usually the case for me. The US corporate media isn't using this terminology, but "civil war" is now often used to describe what is going on in Iraq. As you know, the death toll has been about 100 per day for the last two months. Now the Israeli invasion of Lebanon is more gas on the fire. If the neo-cons are successful, and things are going well for them right now, then we could be in another war with Iran within months. I'm predicting post election, much like the bombing of Fallujah right after the 2004 election.
Jeff is very knowledgeable and very articulate about US foreign policy in the Mideast. I believe he has the intelligence, knowledge, integrity, and compassion to be an excellent legislator and policy maker. I think that his understanding of what is happening in the Mideast is woefully lacking among policy makers who are already in Washington. Either they don't understand it or they have been bought off by special interests.
We have a lot of problems, I'm not denying that. I just happen to put the Mideast at the top of the list.
Rex Scott|W|P|Boo-Hoo:Franzi had already said the same thing about Latas in his column in the Northwest Explorer some weeks ago, so Hellon was just repeating that line. The GOP would love to run against Latas because he could not attract the crossover support that Giffords has proven she can attract throughout her earlier races in the old LD13 and the current LD28. Sounds to me like Franzi and Hellon are trying to fill their own dance card!
All:
In a GOP-majority district like CD8, the Democrat candidate MUST be able to hold the party together, attract most of the independents and get a certain number of dissatisfied Republicans to switch sides. Latas's appeal and agenda are too narrow to do that. Giffords has a record of winning over voters from all segments of the electorate, the resources to get her message out and a platform that will resonate with all voters except those on the far left or far right.
Liza|W|P|Jeff Latas has a broad platform with positions addressing the Mideast, national security, immigration, disaster preparedness, health care, retirement security, veterans, education, energy policy, the environment, labor, election reform, civil rights, international trade, and media independence to name most of them.I think that Jeff is best known for speaking out against the invasion and occupation of Iraq prior to announcing his candidacy. However, Jeff has addressed most domestic issues of concern as well as US foreign policy in the Mideast. In my estimation, this is a very broad and comprehensive platform.
However, I'm just now starting to get out and work my precinct. Man, its been hot. I could start another conversation about what I hear from voters but maybe later on that. For now, let's just say it doesn't jive with what I read on these blogs.
x4mr|W|P|Blue,You're right. Somehow my memory played the event in a way that had me think they moved stuff around, but when I watched again, I realized the editing was minimal. All they did was cut the delay between Patty and Gabby, which was appropriate.
My brain still tells me the Bill Johnson stuff was at the very end, but apparently it wasn't.
Something else I noticed was signage placement. Don't know if it was intentional, but Jeff had his sign behind him so that footage of his speaking included it in the background. Smart.
I have no idea to what extent online video will impact the election, but yes, will concede that Jeff is way ahead of the others on this front so far.
Of course, we all know there are other very critical fronts.
For those that have been watching, Steve Huffman has had television ads up for a couple of days now. Huffman has the cash to run a better race than his main opponents, Mike Hellon and Randy Graf, but still needs to introduce himself to the voters.
The ad (which is unavailable on his website) is standard "Chamber of Commerce" Republican fare: I lowered taxes and balanced budgets. Also, he mentions supporting the "War on Terror," a brave stand that risks alienating the Republican primary voters that support al-Quaeda.
The ad also mentions Jim Kolbe's endorsement of Huffman. It does not feature it though, it merely flashes up a quote from Kolbe with his name barely visible. I would have thought he would feature this more prominently, but either he doesn't think this is going to mean much, or he is saving Kolbe for later.
The ad doesn't feature "red meat" for Republican voters concerned with immigration the way that Hellon's ads do. Nor does it include any attacks on Graf, supposedly Huffman has polling that shows Graf vulnerable on a number of issues. But, this is a biography ad, and these are often free of specific issue proposals or attacks. He's got plenty of money to run those later.
Does the "Chamber of Commerce" message carry the day this year? Hellon seems to have abandoned it entirely, although, despite what one poll supposedly said, it didn't seem to work. Graf seems to be reaching the other way, he hired as his new campaign manager a former staffer with the National Federation of Independent Business.
Graf didn't raise as much as Huffman, and I have yet to see a Graf ad, but those in the know still talk about him as a front runner. Does Huffman's money mean he will be able to define Graf? Or, have people already made up their mind about him and this is a question of Huffman making himself the alternative? If Huffman is the alternative, are there enough moderate voters that will be so excited about Huffman that they show up?|W|P|115339861929232253|W|P|Huffman on the Teevee|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Tedski|W|P|Status quo on education? You may want to go back and check on what he tried to do to the desegregation funds. Framer|W|P|Steve is definately in the game, but he will need to run a perfect campaign from here forward. His problem isn't so much Graf as it is Hellon. Had he spent money before now, he could possibly have forced Hellon out of the race, now Hellon is set to capitolize on any attacks and attrition that Steve can score on Graf. If Hellon scores more than 15% in the primary, it will be very hard for Steve to win.Additionally, Steve has a lot of money, but almost no grassroots whatsoever. He has been a no-show at many in not most of the handshake and baby-kissing events that are used to gain and reward grassroots, possibly reenforcing his image as distant and arrogant among the party faithful. At the events that he has attended, he has failed to bring many visible supporters with him (possibly the reason why he has skipped subsequent events).
So the two big questions are:
1. Can a seven week media blitz trump solid grassroots support in a primary?
2. Is a border enforcement first policy truly the overriding issue of the GOP primaries? If it is, Steve will not win. If other issues are just as important, advantage Huffman.
Framer|W|P|The problem with attack ads for Steve is that he already has a bad reputation in this area. Any hits that are devistating to Graf, will still look poorly on him as well. In a two person race, going negative may have been effective. However, Steve allowed Hellon to position himself in the center between himself and Graf (although politically speaking Steve and Mike have just about the same stance on most issues). Hellon would receive the votes moved from Graf and the votes of those disgusted with Steve for going negative.
It was foolish at best for Steve to allow Mike to define himself unopposed for the past couple of months, arrogant at worst if he thought that Hellon no longer mattered without the Kolbe endorsement.
Also remember that Graf's "extreme" views measure up to prop 200 which passed 57% (I believe) in this district in the General (not just Republicans) and with the Sensenbrenner Immigration Bill which is a huge winner with the Republican base nationally. He is solid pro-life and traditional marriage. Huffman is weak on all of these issues and any attacks on Graf could be seen by stong supporters of these causes as attacks on them, which could certainly energize Graf's base more than diminish it.
Huffman made some poor campaign decisions early on and it will be interesting to see if money can bail him out. If it does, expect primary campaign strategy in this District to change dramitically in the future and be more based on fundraising rather than campaign events.
Craig|W|P|The Phoenix Business Journal has a report on Dennis Hastert coming to visit the border this weekend.http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2006/07/17/daily46.html
Any word/speculation on which candidates will join him (if any)?
Rex Scott|W|P|I completely agree with the points made by Phx Kid. The numbers don't look good for either Hellon or Huffman. It stands to reason that the 43% Graf got against Kolbe two years ago will stick with him for the most part. The two major candidates (Hellon and Huffman) and the two minor candidates (Antenori and Jenkins) who oppose Graf do nothing but split the "anyone but Randy" vote. If those in the GOP who oppose a Graf nomination in CD8 had been smart, they would have united behind ONE candidate to go against him. Since Hellon and Huffman couldn't do that, they can go ahead and start writing their concession speeches.
It is also obvious that Graf best represents the majority views in today's GOP. Huffman is getting punked on conservative blogs and would be targeted like Hershberger if he were still in LD26. Hellon got tossed out of his party post by the right-wingers a few years ago.
You know the campaign is getting serious...Patty Weiss has now enlisted the talents of her father in her campaign for congress.
Weiss's father, Duane Bryers, is a well-known and respected western artist (and is less well known for his buxom pin-up girl, Hilda). Byers sent something I consider a first: a handwritten e-mail. The cartoony appeal is for donations to put "Patty back on TV."
Not only is the cutsey e-mail eye catching, especially when you consider the dozens of samish appeals that clog the in-box of even the most casual activist, but it emphasizes something that only a couple of candidates in this race can claim: strong family ties to Tucson.
Gabrielle Giffords's family has been here for three generations, and they have some measure of local fame themselves. In addition to being a businessman, her grandfather "Giff" Giffords was a well known broadcast personality. One former co-worker told me back in 2000 that she voted for her because she still remembered his "A Good Good Evening" sign-off. Her father was also a prominent businessman, and her mother is a well regarded art restorer.
Although not exactly "Tucson ties," Bill Johnson (do I have to mention him?) has ancestral ties to the district. His ancestors founded St. David, although he himself was born in Pinal County.
Of course, my family has them all beat, but I won't get into that.|W|P|115323227727456669|W|P|My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Tedski|W|P|Ah, but which Marshall Kgun? Burt Oien or Bob Love? Tedski|W|P|In Patty's defense, this isn't exactly a persuasion piece being sent out to voters, this is a fundraising appeal to people that probably already support her campaign. TimWilsonAZ|W|P|Nice cartoon, that'll probably work very well. x4mr|W|P|Brad,You are posting for input on July 19 for a story that is going to run on July 20?
I assume you want a report on what bloggers think of blogging as opposed to what is actually happening on the blogs. If I wanted to report on what is happening, I'd read whatever is relevant and then write my report, crazy stuff and anonymous names and all.
Best of luck seeking input from folks from folks willing give names, ages, occupations, and I will look for your article.
I guess you can't quote me, but one remark is that blogs transcend the paradigm of traditional media and if you constrain yourself inside certain limitations, it will be a challenge to capture what is really taking place.
Another remark is that the anonymous nature of the participants creates a completely different conversation. If I supply name, age, occupation, I enter into a different conversation where I must manage all sorts of dynamics otherwise not involved. Some nobody called x4mr is whatever he posts. That’s it, no more no less, good or bad. But what if I am Chuck Huckelberry, or Mike Hein, or Sharon Bronson? I cease to be simply what I post.
Art (The Data Port) has expressed frustration regarding anonymity. This and other aspects of blogging have been well discussed at that blog. IMHO if you read some of the threads at Data Port (in particular one about the political blogosphere, but others as well) you will find some interesting material. I assume you are thinking in the political context since you posted here.
I won't talk up Tedski. He already gets enough praise, and he's great for a good laugh when you're feeling down.
As you will see from the article, I was asked at a news conference months ago to comment on this same issue. As I said at the time, while marriage and parenthood provide me with unique experiences and perspective, this campaign should be waged on the issues, not someone's marital status.To be fair to Munsil, he called the tone of the remarks "deeply disturbing," but then he accompanies this with something to the effect of "by the way...I am married..." Munsil is a smart political operator, so excuse me for being cynical about his motives here. It seems to be disingenuous to condemn Tupper and Harris, then try to make the same point they did.|W|P|115318130490998358|W|P|You Might Well Think That, But I Couldn't Possibly Comment|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Your commentary on this is way better then mine. Rex Scott|W|P|Munsil is the likely GOP nominee and, given his past pursuits, we can expect him to run a classic conservative campaign. That not only means frequent lunges at the hot buttons that get the red-meat right wingers riled up; it also means that he will get nasty when it gets down to the wire. Right now, Munsil is trying to establish himself with the average voter that has no clue who he is, both in the GOP and amongst the general electorate. That means that the real down and dirty stuff is saved for the true believers who wouldn't consider voting for Janet in any instance. Munsil doesn't want to turn off the suburbanites and "moderates" that shunned Matt Salmon four years ago, so he'll keep the ugly tactics under wraps...until they're needed at crunch time. Ask John and Cindy McCain what that felt like in South Carolina back in 2000.
The thing that scares me a tad about Munsil is that he looks like a choirboy and is an erudite and informed speaker. If immigration and the anti-gay marriage initiative become key topics of discussion among voters AND a recession hits near election time, he could play to both economic and social conservatives.
I'm hoping to hear more from Janet about the values she has backed most of the time as governor...and tough talk from her about what Len Munsil's Arizona would look like. She should also be blunt about what her vetoes of extreme GOP bills have saved us from enduring. The Clintonesque game of triangulation she practiced with the budget (backing tax cuts and vouchers) won't mean squat against a silver-tongued Republican who can promise voters much more of such snake oil!
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|By the way Ted, how come you are introducing bills into the state legislature to ban cell phone usage while driving? Eli Blake|W|P|Munsil claims he is pro-family...In March I wrote a post entitled A simple reason some women choose abortion-- anything else is too expensive in which I related the results of a study done by the Guttmacher institute that found a clear link between income level and access to health insurance and abortion-- specifically, uninsured poor women were choosing abortions because having a baby delivered at a hospital would be prohibitively expensive, even if it were completely healthy.
I then wrote,
As such, I would like to ask conservatives if they would object to a very limited but very complete universal coverage bill: a bill which covers all hospital, physician, technician and prescription costs associated with pregnancy, delivery and if necessary complications directly arising from pregnancy and birth, including to correct birth defects and any complications arising to the mother. Of course, abortion would be unaffected by the bill and would still cost what it does today
It seems that if Republicans are really pro-life, then they will immediately jump on this opportunity to help women who can't afford to have a child, to have one. The Guttmacher study certainly suggests that it would prevent quite a few abortions.
So, how about it, Len?
Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:Except you have no logic in your post. It isn't 'us' who 'mutilate unborn babies' (as you call abortion) it is women who can't afford not to. As the study pointed out, some of them don't even want abortions, but they do it purely for cost reasons. What 'we' (I assume you mean liberals) have to do with it, I don't know-- it's not like we have a direct line to these women and are ordering them to get abortions (as your post seems to imply that you believe).
But I guess if you want to ignore the facts and shoot the messenger, that is your right.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Oh and I figured out where the title of the blog post came from: The House of Cards from the BBC political drama.
There was a street entrance to the suite that I was supposed to check credentials at one night. 
We were only supposed to let in the dignitary and one guest, and absolutely no press. Because we were right on the street, all sorts of people walked by who thought this was an entrance that didn't have a long line, so we had to turn them away. A governor came by, if my memory serves, it was Wyoming Governor Mike Sullivan (and if I remember right, he was with Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus). Sullivan was, for some reason, hanging with Eleanor Clift.
"Governor, I can let you in, but I can't let her in," I told him.
"Well, whah not?"
"Well, I am not supposed to let press in."
"Aww, she's not press, she's mah waaf," Sullivan drawled. Clift smiled like a cheerleader trying to be coy while the quarterback asks her to the homecoming dance.
I thought, this woman has suffered too long at the hands of John McLaughlin and Fred Barnes. "Oh, I was mistaken, I'm sorry, she can come in."
Clift thanked me. Then, almost immediately, comes Robert Novak. He tries to walk right by us.
"I'm sorry Mr. Novak, no press allowed."
"You let Eleanor Clift in!"
"Is that who that was?"
The guy that was helping me started laughing. Novak stormed off.
I was able to cut out a bit early that night and I made it back to my room in time to see Capital Gang, which was done from the convention floor every night. That night Novak said that this was the worst staffed convention he had ever seen.|W|P|115314711392290683|W|P|The Time I Met Robert Novak|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Children are never fair game until they turn 18. After that only whatever they do afterwards is fair game.Spouse is okay sometimes.
Tedski|W|P|Geez, I tell what I thought was a neat story...and you guys change the subject. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|It was the best story ever told in the history of the world Ted. I am in awe that you did whatever was in the story. Shall I just worship you now or is this enough sarcasm? :DI am a proud member of the Democratic Party, and I believe it is our party's responsibility to support the will of the Democratic primary voters in Connecticut. I personally look forward to supporting the candidate CT voters elect as the Democratic nominee. Though, as an aside, I must say I find it ironic that Senator Lieberman is now planning a potential run as an independent after he continually questioned my loyalty to the Democratic Party during the 2004 presidential primary.|W|P|115310712718861023|W|P|Wesley Clark on Joe Lieberman|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Rex Scott|W|P|The Democrats should support the Democratic nominee...PERIOD! If that is lamont, so be it, but Lieberman is hardly a closet Republican! Look beyond his vote on Iraq and you see a person who has been a loyal Democrat for decades. Why should he be drummed out of the party because so many differ with him on that issue? Aren't we acting just like the Republicans who are going after Hershberger and Hellon in Arizona LD26? Shouldn't there be room in our party for ALL points of view on Iraq and other issues?Besides, current polling indicates that Lieberman would WIN if he ran as an independent, not thrown the seat to the GOP. Even that is not so bad because he would caucus with the Democrats. That would be the same as Jim Jeffords, the former Republican (and now independent) Vermont Sebator who left his party because his views were no longer heard or welcomed in a party he had belonged to for decades!
Michael Bryan|W|P|Because Frank wants Jeff to know exactly what the score is. Liza|W|P|Tedski,I'm not sure what you're driving at here with this post. Are you trying to stir up some doubts about Latas now that Weiss and Giffords have pointed out some of each other's weaknesses?
I think that Latas just injected some accuracy into his reply about supporting the winner of the CD8 Democratic primary. I realize that accuracy is woefully lacking in most of what transpires in political campaigns. However, if Johnson is a Democratic candidate in this race (real reason notwithstanding), Latas gave an honest answer. Latas was not defending Johnson as you suggest, he was acknowledging that the guy is in the race.
Sorry to state the obvious, but that's all there is to this.
x4mr|W|P|I don't think you are going to see a video posted from this event.Now someone might prove me wrong in the next 20 minutes, but I just posted at AZWatch about the lack of video from this event. There were six camcorders there, if not more.
What might be happening, and this is just speculation on my part, is that the campaigns have either spoken or not spoken into a certain understanding about what is good for the goose........
Unlike Willcox, this time every campaign has footage of the whole thing.
Regarding Latas remark, tend to agree with Liza in that he was pointing out a certain possibility and I gave him kudos for doing it. I might be wrong, but my interpretation of the thing about Johnson being invited was pure "political correctness."
I don't believe for a second that Latas does not know at least as much about Johnson as what was posted at Blog for AZ.
x4mr|W|P|Well, I stand corrected (it happens).Latas has posted video. Just go to his events page and scroll down.
Craig|W|P|I'd also like to see a breakdown of donors to each campaign - AZ vs. out of AZ and small (<$500) vs. large (>$500).Is there a listing anywhere on the web yet? The updated reports weren't on the FEC's website as of last night.
My expectation is that Harry Mitchell's report will show that he has far more donors with smaller average donations, and a far higher percentage of his donors from AZ, than JD.
Those are only guesses, though. Can't wait to see the hard numbers.
As for why Mitchell outraised Hayworth, maybe it's simply because more people like Harry.
Tedski|W|P|Everyone's wild about Harry?Sorry...it was inevitable.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ted! That was awful! *laughs*Harry is well liked in his local area and he can get people not active to volunteer for him. I was at my orthodondist the other day and the lady in charge of the finances came over to tell me she AND her husband had been calling regularly for Harry. She also said that her husband hated phones and avoided them whenever possible yet he was doing hour or more at the HQ in Tempe.
TimWilsonAZ|W|P|430K from individual donors in three months?Enough said. Mitchell rules.
Tedski|W|P|And Chez Nous is the height of class, right?Geez, dude, you know that you could have called me to take you to actual cool places.
I hate the Buffet. I hope you stayed clear of the bathrooms.
That's what happens to you when you try to do something for the people...I just picked up 10 points in name recognition.And...
I'm like a cult hero now...I guess I'll never be able to go to another casino.Um, yeah, being picked out as a problem gambler is a good thing. Republican leaders are pressing the guy to quit. That isn't to say that the Democratic Primary isn't any fun. Lieberman is running a suprisingly inept campaign. If you want proof of this, check out one of his amatuerish ads. Also fun is to check out Lamont's response. If nothing else, you'll see that Lamont's strength in this race is not his, uh, personal charisma.|W|P|115297604406653501|W|P|The Arizonization of National Politics?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Tedski|W|P|Suh, Son of Vulcan and Peter Cannon...Thunderbolt were not "half-assed."Now Atlas comics, that was half-assed.
Eli Blake|W|P|There's a good reason why Arizona politics today are noticeably less corrupt than in some other states.It's called the Arizona clean elections law.
Even with the recent revelation that some lobbyists have been buying lunch for our legislators, this pales into insignificance compared to the big money they've been able to dump in other states and at the national level. And donating a ton of money doesn't do any good for them if it is to a candidate whose opponent is running clean (Matt Salmon and his backers got a lesson in that four years ago), so they don't, and therefore our candidates don't get bought that way.
In this year that has brought us the ugly end of Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay, let us be thankful for the Arizona clean elections law that has spared us this kind of scandal here.
Now, if only the rest of the nation would pass something like that on a national level, then we wouldn't have Senators and Congressmen who sell their souls in Washington.
Eli Blake|W|P|I don't hope that Katherine Harris moves to Arizona. I hope she moves to Bhutan or some similarly obscure place so we never have to see or hear of her again. Craig|W|P|If Katherine Harris moves to AZ, Tucson has to take her - karmic payback for you wishing she would move here. lol
I recieved an e-mail saying that Republicans are trying to recruit former State Rep. Jim Carruthers to run as a write-in in the place of Rep. Russ Jones. I'm dubious about this, since Carruthers was a moderate and I find it hard to believe that Republicans would recruit a moderate given their mood these days. Of course, it would all depend on what group of Republicans was doing the recruiting.
Also, I've been told that Carruthers, given his moderate bent, would not be enthusiastic about running against Democratic Rep. Amanda Aguirre, nor would he be enthusiastic about the "2/3 majority" plan of the conservative leadership.|W|P|115291989644737249|W|P|Someone Else in District 24?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com x4mr|W|P|I also checked into Wilson thing, since it appears to be one of the few FACTS being cited.This guy contributes to lots of candidates, almost all of the donations in the $150 to $400 range. He spreads it around.
He also works for lots of causes, naturally some we might agree with and some we do not.
Bloggers have screamed the high heavens on this and SB1065, and now it's front page of the Tucson section of today's Star.
If this is the worst aspect of a five year record that Weiss campaign can find, it looks pretty good for Giffords.
x4mr|W|P|Good point, bored. Tedski's humor often brightens my day. Just noted a day or two ago how one of his quips provoked an outburst in a coffee shop that startled my fellow caffeinators.Please keep doing what you do, Tedski. There are some out here that appreciate.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|The thing I wanted to know about the nude recreationists is how come they are willing to have someone like him who supports Gabby, are they not mostly conservatives?(Time or Newsweek did a profile a few years ago and they were all these really into "purity" Christians running around "pure" aka nude. Which is impressive because that really is living in a glass house I think.)
x4mr|W|P|SAOL,"There's no telling where the money went." ???
Yea, there is. They're filming ads, purchasing TV/radio time, yard and street signage, paying staff, printing literature, and the list goes on. No reason to believe anything different about the Weiss campaign.
What many have speculated appears to be unfolding, which is a two way race between the ladies. The Weiss number is not particularly surprising. Most interested in the Latas number, but haven't seen it yet, and in this conversation, no news tends to be bad news.
Eli Blake|W|P|Munsil's comments are a stretch considering that we don't even have a clue of who these people are and what set them off.His assertions may be right, but then again, what is he going to say if they catch them and discover that they are both graduates of sheriff Joe's tent city and that they learned to hate civilized society while they were in there being fed green bologna? Since we know nothing, that has to be presumed to be just as likely as what Munsil is asserting.
Eli Blake|W|P|chris:Why would anyone hire a guy like sproul to work his campaign?
Maybe because he's running against a very popular governor, so he knows the only way he can have a chance is if someone 'loses' a bunch of Democratic voter files in the garbage? In that case, he's looking towards Sproul's experience and proven track record in these sorts of matters.
Eli Blake|W|P|The reason why Arizona is on top of the crime list is bluntly clear when you examine the FBI crime statistics for 2005. 962 Motor vehicle thefts per 100,000 population, and all but a handful of them in Maricopa or Pima county. Of course, our population centers are much closer to Mexico than the biggest population centers in other states (except maybe California, but we have a much longer border than they do.) The Governor has been pushing border security for months. What does Munsil plan to do about it?Oh, wait a minute-- Munsil does have a plan. We can assume from his criticism of the Governor that if he were Governor, he wouldn't worry at all about people throwing trash on our highways; We can assume from his criticism of Goddard that according to him, it is perfectly OK if businesses defraud their customers.
Maybe Munsil, since he doesn't care about it anyway, will simply ask the legislature to make fraud legal. Then the crime rate will go down as well, and he can claim he was successful.
This week, Patty Weiss's campaign responded to Gabrielle Giffords's campaign with a statement from a former Executive Director of the Clean Elections Institute:Giffords’ strong record in support of campaign finance reform and financial transparency is well-known in Arizona. The Giffords campaign today released a letter from the former Executive Director of the Clean Elections Institute, Sharlene Bozack, which stated that without Giffords’ defense of the Clean Elections system in the legislature, “Arizona would not have such a system today.”
Bozack, who served as the Executive Director of the Clean Elections Institute from 1999-2001, attested to Giffords’ support for Arizona’s Clean Elections System. The letter, dated July 6, 2006, and addressed to Giffords, states that “without your strong commitment to seeing that the [Clean Elections] law not be overturned, the State of Arizona would not have such a system today.” The letter hailed Giffords for having “stood firm in your support of the system when it was under challenges at the state legislature,” and noted that Giffords “helped strategize with me to make sure the system did not get overturned in the legislature.”
"Running clean is important for everyone, but even more so for candidates outside of Maricopa County," said [Barbara] Lubin. "Candidates south of the Gila who opt out of Clean Elections often take significant contributions from Phoenix-area donors. This can create conflicts of interest for Tucson-area senators and representatives when legislation concerning Southern Arizona comes before them."Since, as far as I know, there is not a third former Executive Director, we will not be seeing a release from Jeff Latas or Alex Rodriguez.|W|P|115270775617935462|W|P|Dueling Press Releases|W|P|prezelski@aol.comLubin went on to say that she is confident that Weiss is the best choice to fight for clean elections in Washington.
"It is easy to talk the talk; much harder to walk the walk," said Lubin. "I am certain that Patty Weiss is the best candidate in this race and will be the national advocate we need to finally pass a system of publicly-financed elections that will take the special interest influence out of politics. And most importantly, I know she will run under a publicly-financed system as soon as it is available."
x4mr|W|P|Love that sense of humor, Tedski. Noting the lack of a third executive director made my morning--startled everyone else in the coffee shop.Of course, at the macro level clean elections and corruption are a huge issue and safe turf for getting emotional and delivering moving speeches. Actually getting anything done about it for real is another matter, indeed, and not buying that Giffords is corrupt.
True she chose to run "conventional" in the past and appropriate to hear her rationale for doing so. We probably will.
Actually, I'm interested in whether it is Giffords' or Giffords's, Weiss's or Weiss', Latas' or Latas's, and what if it's plural, as in Weiss's supporters, or is it Weisss'?
Rodgriguez's supporters?
Perhaps we should elect Francine.
Rex Scott|W|P|1. ONE VOTE (in committee, by the way) is the only action cited by those on this blog (and others) who criticize Giffords as being some sort of corporate shill. Weiss takes the same half-baked approach in her earlier post on Kos and in other strikes launched by her campaign. ONE VOTE does not a pattern make, nor does citing ONE ENDORSEMENT (Basha) from a guy the Democrats nominated for governor in 1998! I'm sure you could find a single position you didn't like in the Latas or Weiss platforms. Does that then give you cause to make some blanket assertion such as the one you hurl at Giffords?2. Is everyone who takes Clean Elections funding supposed to be some kind of saint? If so, let's start polishing halos for Len Munsil, Don Goldwater AND all of the right-wingers in the Legislature who "ran clean." I'll take Giffords' voting record, lauded across the board by interest groups who support the Democratic agenda, over those "clean" folks any time!
3. Giffords is the ONLY candidate drawing support from ALL segments of the Democratic Party. She also has a track record of attracting support from independents and open-minded Republicans, as she proved in the former LD13 and the current LD28. We need that ability to win this Republican-majority district. I'm sure it feels good to put forth these "more Democrat than thou" arguments when trashing Giffords and/or touting Weiss or Latas, but they don't stand up to scrutiny based on her demonstrated record in Phoenix and her opponents are less likely to attract the independent and GOP votes needed to WIN!
4. The not-so-subtle attempt to inject personal innuendo into this race made by tooblue4u in an earlier post is slimy and loathesome. I have no doubt that the Latas and Weiss camps would not associate themselves with that sort of crap. I'm also certain the average voter knows how to filter such remarks
x4mr|W|P|Relax about the numbering, Mr. T, it has no bearing on your sound remarks, and concur with dogma's sentiment, save that I am not clear you will draw any fire.We'll see. As this progresses I am finding it harder to avoid the conclusion that a "seasoned" (in this context) politician is doing what it takes to get elected, and that amateur opponents are desperately flailing away to strike a wound that draws blood.
I don't think they have. But as they try, with all these assertions and allegations we have read a dozen times, it is natural for those who support Giffords, like Roger, to respond, and of course it gets emotional.
My dander starts to rise when Patty starts accepting invitations that were never made, and in particular, when people start talking about "I have horrible secrets the republicans will reveal in time, but do your own research!"
Barring some development of real significance, and unlikely it will happen on these blogs, it looks like Giffords is walking into this nomination, with a whole lot of folks bitching every step of the way.
x4mr|W|P|Then again, maybe not a whole lot of folks.Maybe a dozen or so bloggers.
x4mr|W|P|Sorry, Roger, but asking folks to stop distorting is like asking them to stop breathing.This is 7/13, so we're down to two months. On 9/13, this whole thing changes.
Got an invite just now to Huffman 7/22 shindig featuring our current Congressman Kolbe. Thought about going (have never met Huffman) until I saw the suggested contribution of $250 a pop.
That's six bottles of Laphroaig.
By the way, this entire thread consists of 16 people. Not sure what to make that mean except what many have already noted--this election is not decided on blogs.
Found it interesting that the latest kos attack by the Weiss squad drew only six comments (so far, after 4 days), three by her own people and a few nay-says from Latas folks.
IMHO blogs (or whatever they morph into) will become important, but not in this election.
Okay...I took pictures at the minimum wage rally at the IBEW hall yesterday. This is one of the better pictures I got, because, as Supervisor Richard Elias said, I was standing in the back with the "sweaty people."
Of course, sweaty people is what this was all about: people that dig our ditches, change our bed pans and serve us our hamburgers. The rally was in support of an initiative that would raise our minimum wage to $6.75 an hour.
John Edwards's line that was quoted over and over again:
I'd like to see that crowd in Washington that votes against raising the minimum wage try to live on $5.15 an hour.Point taken. By the way, Senator Jon Kyl voted against raising the minimum wage (six times!), but voted for a hike in his own pay. Speakers included AFL-CIO official Rebecca Friend, Sen. Gabrielle Giffords, Jim Pederson, Rep. Raúl Grijalva and even Rep. Steve Gallardo drove down from Phoenix to speak to the crowd. Gallardo has introduced minimum wage bills at the legislature, but they don't get a hearing. So much for "working class conservatives." KVOA teased the story by waying that "Raising the minimum wage may be a 'no brainer'...", which was Pederson's line at the rally. From the teaser, it made it sound like there were all sorts of aggrieved buisinessmen in town that hate raising the minimum wage. Instead, the story featured two buisinessmen, one who supported the wage hike, and the other that had concerns but didn't seen that opposed. So, if KVOA (not exactly a bastion of labor activism) couldn't find any buisiness opposition, why do Republicans keep voting against it? By the way, the speech was wide ranging. It was as if, I dunno, Edwards was running for office. Naw, can't be. NB - The Star printed a quote from a flack for the Goldwater Institute:
Do you think King George was giving handouts to the American colonists?Hm...I don't know how many American Colonists King George employed, and I don't know if they worked for minimum wage.|W|P|115266743569070089|W|P|John Edwards|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Michael Bryan|W|P|On the other hand, this could be a good thing. Under the theory that 'anything those Mexicans do must be wrong' maybe right wingers will stop voting and donating to politicians in protest.
Former Dr. Drew sidekick Adam Carolla seems to have found the right way to handle Ann Coulter. Click here, does contain some foul language.
NB - Adam "apologized" later. Scroll down to "Ann Coulter Fallout."|W|P|115262861370249054|W|P|Now, If We Can Just Get More People to Do That|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
I was glad to see that some of our state's media have picked up on the Jon Kyl Supreme Court story.
Well, now the Arizona Democratic Party has an online petition demanding that Kyl apologize for inserting a phony colloquy between him and Sen. Lindsey Graham, and then trying to use that as evidence before the Supreme Court.
The party, in their petition, demands that Kyl appologize on the floor of the Senate or he can, their words, "insert his written apology into the congressional record." Geez, no need to be such smart alecs, fellas. That's my job.
You can sign the online petition here.|W|P|115257901861324497|W|P|Jon Kyl Petition|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Liza|W|P|phx kid,Okay, so we Democrats have a long way to go. The truth is, Jon Kyl has been in lockstep with the Bush Administration and logic says he should be about as popular as Bush. But, of course, logic does not prevail in the Senate or the House because most voters never examine the voting records of their representatives. In fact, at least half the electorate doesn't vote. This explains the power of incumbency.
However, we Democrats understand that we have to just expose the Republicans one lie and deception at a time. Sooner or later it will make a difference.
Just a little something for you to think about on your way to Wal-mart in your SUV, happily listening to your Toby Keith CD.
Liza|W|P|What's really sad is that the stereotype fits, condescending or not. Isn't that the whole point of being a middle class Republican? Get your opinions from Fox News and talk radio, put a yellow ribbon on the SUV to "support the troops," and its off to the races (NASCAR, usually).Can you define "plutocracy?" Look it up, friend.
Liza|W|P|phx kid,Toby Keith is a former Texas oil field worker who morphed into a country music singer/songwriter. You would probably have to be very drunk to appreciate his music but he achieved some mainstream media attention by releasing a CD entitled "Shock'n Y'all" sometime around the invasion of Iraq.
Bush's popularity has declined since the '04 election, as you must be aware of, because even the mainstream media has reported approval ratings as low as 31% within the last six months.
Jon Kyl is most definitely in lockstep with the Bush Administration for the last six plus years and his voting record speaks for itself. He has been 100% behind the radical right wing idealogues who have taken control of this country. So, if you like where the Bush Administration has taken us, vote for Kyl and get more of the same.
If Kyl deviates from Bush on border enforcement, then its because he is saying what he thinks he needs to say to placate his Arizona supporters while he's trying to get re-elected. If re-elected, he will tow the party line, make no mistake about it.
Like I said, its tough to beat an incumbent, but mid-July is very early to predict anything for a November election. I think that the two most important factors in the Kyl/Pederson contest are voter turnout and the public exposure of Kyl's voting record.
We'll see, huh?
Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, I just want to congratulate Ted.Since no one else has commented on it, I will-- I'm glad the Jon Kyl muppet is back.
Liza:
Wasn't it called 'the American way?' or something like that? And as I recall it dealt mostly with September 11 and the perpetrators. I just remember the line, 'I'm gonna put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.'
So, I was watching the World Cup Final over at a bar on 6th St. Needless to say, the bar was quite, shall we say, sectarian. It wasn't quite a Glasgow Old Firm Derby, but emotions were running high, and the place was definitely split between the Azzurri (The Blues) and Les Bleus (The, um...Blues). Up on the screen pops a shot of one of the skyboxes, and there is President Bill Clinton watching the game.
The place errupted with cheers. It was as if a goal got scored. I tried to crane my ear to hear a single dissent and got none.
I have a feeling that our current president would not have gotten the same reaction from the place.|W|P|115253405741192357|W|P|One Political World Cup Observation|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Eli Blake|W|P|Our current President? Heck, when he goes to Europe, he is now so paranoid that he even has his poop collected, classified and flown back to America, and has a food taster.He must have some inkling of how he is perceived over there if he feels he has to go to those security extremes.
Tedski|W|P|Funny thing Eli...I wasn't talking about the German crowd reaction...I was talking about the reaction of the folks here in the bar. Tedski|W|P|That "French Guy" is the great Zinédine Zidane. Sheesh.Avoir du Pois! or something to you...MoFo.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Wow Tom, even I know who Zizou is and what a great player he is/was since he is retiring.I think it is important for all those young out there, who someday hope to play real football, where you throw it and kick it and run with it and put it in your hands, a distinction should be made that football is democratic, capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport.I always found this ironic, because there are few non-governmental institutions in this country more dependent on state support and run in a more socialistic way than the NFL. I have heard it noted that the ads feature the voice of Andrés Cantor. That announcer doesn't sound much like him.|W|P|115241876693443872|W|P|As Long as Demócratas Unidos Don't Pick Up Donovan, I'm Okay With It|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Sen. Joe Biden was caught saying something incredibly stupid and offensive on a broadcast of Road to the White House:
I've had a great relationship. In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking.Um, yeah. Great. I've always considered Biden, the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to graduate from college, an arrogant jackass. Coupled with that arrogance has been an incredible breadth of knowledge of foreign policy. Unfortunately, for the next few weeks, all the press is going to give a darn about is this dumbass statement. As expected, the Democratic-leaning USINPAC is saying that the statement is not offensive, while the Indian American Republican Council finds it incredibly offensive. Funny thing with the IARC, they don't seem to have any problem with the villifying of Indian-American H1B Visa holders by Lou Dobbs and other prominent opponents of immigration, but they have a press release taking offense to Sen. Robert Byrd's not-even-year-long membership in the Ku Klux Klan more than sixty years ago. Well, I guess this sort of thing is to be expected. The thing I'm finding funny is that this becomes yet another reason for conservatives to themselves claim that they are an opressed minority group. Typical of these is this from a man named Kevin Martin of something called Project 21:
If one is conservative, even the most minor perceived slight can earn a place on the hot seat...Such generalizations are expected on "The Simpsons," but not so from the next potential leader of the free world. Unless, maybe, if you're a liberal.Funny, Biden says something offensive about Indian-Americans, but almost immediately, conservative commentators paint themselves as the victims. This is the sort of whining that, from a liberal, inspires epithets like "lefty bed-wetter" and "crybaby" from the conservatives. I agree that what Biden says was offensive, but I can't take the conservative hand-wringing seriously. As soon as they make a serious effort to get rid of the racists in their own ranks, and stop trying to appeal to them, I'll start to listen. My problem is, when a Republican office holder says something offensive like this, it is much more likely to be backed up by actual policy. NB - Interestingly, the IARC press release on Byrd says that he was a "Grand Dragon" of the Klan, which is false. In the sixty years since, Byrd has regretted his membership in the Klan, which lasted a few months, and managed to get a 100% rating from the NAACP.|W|P|115237641945161838|W|P|Joe Biden on Small Business Owners of South-Asian Descent|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Eli Blake|W|P|The thing that needs to be pointed out, and pointed out and pointed out is this (and unfortunately, Pederson would look bad if he came out and said it himself but everyone else should say it):In this year of corruption scandals, and of Abramoff and DeLay and Duke Cunningham, and with Jon Kyl accepting millions of dollars over the past few years from special interests and corporations, who needed (and got) his vote-- I mean heck, they gave Kyl over a million dollars six years ago when he had no Democratic opponent at all--
Kyl is a compromised creature. Not only because of his decades in Washington, or because of how thoroughly special interest and PAC donations have pervaded every corner of Washington and he's been at ground zero soaking it all up for all that time, but because he owes. The people who make the big money donations have an agenda. And he's taken their money and delivered on their agenda. And they're giving him money again, and he will owe them, not us, the citizens of Arizona (where no one even really ever sees him except in election years.)
Jim Pederson is very rich. That means that unlike Duke Cunningham, he isn't going to Washington to get rich. It means that unlike the people who took money from Jack Abramoff, he doesn't need any money that has strings attached to it, so he's not taking it. And unlike Jon Kyl, he hasn't taken his positions on issues (and especially cast critical votes on them) because he owes anybody anything.
He may put it this way: Jim Pederson: I'll be an independent Senator.
The Kyl campaign may forget that the word, 'independent' means 'not being manipulated or controlled by others (particularly those who've given you money). They think it only means a political independent. They can be forgiven for forgetting the meaning though, because it's the opposite of Jon Kyl.
But what us out here need to say is this:
Jim Pederson: Too rich to be bought.
Correct. Direct. Concise.
It's been noted on a few blogs that in J. D. Hayworth's Whatever It Takes, he names Henry Ford's "Americanization" proposal as part of the inspiration for his views on immigration. There are two examples in his book of this:
Henry Ford, a leader in [the Americanization] movement, said, "These men of many nations must be taught American ways, the English language, and the right way to live." Talk like that today and our liberal elites will brand you a cultural imperialist, or worse. But if you ask me, Ford had a better idea. Sadly, Americanization has given way to an insidious multiculturalism, the noxious idea that all cultures are equally valid and worthy... Henry Ford must be spinning in his grave.And:
Over three decades ago, Nathan Glazer and Daniel Patrick Moynihan asked, "To what does one assimilate in modern America?" In Henry Ford's day, we had a great big list of things. But if multiculturalism and diversity are valued above all else, the answer is you can assimilate however you want, or not at all.
Well, the trouble is, when Henry Ford endorsed "Americanism," it meant a lot more than making sure people learned English. This is from Ford's own writings:
To "Americanize" means, in our ordinary speech, to bring into sympathy with the traditions and institutions of the United States, but the Jews do not mean only the United States when they say "America." They mean also South and Central America-- where so many revolutions have occurred. There are large numbers of Jews in Argentina, and many are found in other countries. It would probably give a wrong slant to the fact to say that the Jewish leaders are wholly anti-America, but it is true to say that they are against the "Americanization" of the Jewish immigrant stream. That is, that the trend of "Americanism" is so different from the trend of "Judaism" that the two are in conflict. This does not indicate treason toward American nationalisms perhaps, so much as it indicates loyalty toward Jewish nationalism.This makes it pretty obvious that Ford's views on immigration were closely tied to his racism against Jews. This is not to say that Hayworth is anti-Semetic, but he (or his ghost writer) needs to understand how quoting Henry Ford's views on immigration to support his views is opening up, as Former New Mexico Governor Bruce King used to say, a whole box of Pandoras. It makes paranoid liberals like me wonder what sort of people he wants to appeal to, and how far he wants to take this. Hayworth was one of many Republican leaders in this state that came out against the PAN initiative, partly because they were worried about charges of racism. I guess he isn't so worried about that anymore. I don't buy a lot of the arguments from the anti-immigrant crowd, but there are probably plenty of decent arguments out there for them to use without picking Henry Ford, so famously anti-Semetic that he was awarded with a medal by the Nazis, out as their Godfather. I'm giving Hayworth the benefit of the doubt here, he seems ignorant of large sections of our history and may not know anything about the "red scare" and anti-semitism that drove the anti-immigration movement of the 1920's. But, someone ought to ask him some serious questions about why he picked a racist like Ford as his model.|W|P|115228370329898012|W|P|J. D. Hayworth Needs to Pick Better Heroes|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Jane Arizona|W|P|I guess he isn't so worried about that anymore.Correct. Anyone who thinks differently than he is a multi-culti politically correct liberal.
I would still like the Congressman to address just which cultures are superior to other cultures. He pointed out in his book that some are better than others, but neglected to give examples.
Eli Blake|W|P|Oh, heck.J.D. will certainly, if this is pointed out to him, find another American icon he can use instead of Henry Ford to make his points.
Like maybe Charles Lindbergh or Walt Disney?
Ann Coulter, your friend and mine, is in a bit of trouble. She has been caught lifting several passages from her last book from a number of sources without attribution.
Pobrecita Ann!
She apparently cribbed from papers like the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times, and also from her friends at the Heritage Foundation.
This story has been circulating for a few days since the New York Post broke it on Monday, but it is only this morning that the not usually so quiet Coulter responded. As expected, she didn't actually address the charges, and instead accused the Post of a shake-down. I didn't say it made any sense, I just said it was her response. I suppose she did this because it would hard to accuse a paper founded by Alexander Hamilton and owned by Rupert Murdoch of being part of the "liberal media."
Also, she accused the Post of becoming a tabloid. Maybe she hadn't noticed, but the Post has been a tabloid since 1942. Dave Astor of Editor and Publisher (note the citation) said it best when he said:
Of course, the Post could hardly be "reduced to tabloid status" since it is, in fact, a tabloid.We'll see if her syndicate takes any action or if any of the papers that carry her column drop her for this. This sort of thing should be a career ender, but doesn't seem to be if you are a big enough deal: Mike Barnicle still works, but where is Patricia Smith? Given that I don't listen to KVOI much, or at all, actually, I missed Steve Aiken's last program. Aiken had an interview with Coulter about her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Aiken had just talked about it being his last show, and the story about his prosecution for having sex with an underage girl had even made national news. I find it hard to believe that Coulter knew nothing about his situation. So, guess what Coulter talked about? How we liberals are immoral, permissive and...well, you know the drill. Given why that was Aiken's last show, to say nothing about Coulter's own admissions about her personal life, isn't this a bit, I dunno, hypocritical? NB - Coulter noted that the guy that dumped salad dressing on Pat Buchanan was only a student at a "two year college." Great...she's on the show of the "Working Class Conservative" but takes this shot. Nice. But, she did note that the judge in the case was a "black female." Twice. I'm not sure what this was supposed to mean. I wanted to use the "borrowing liberaly" line, but found it was in the Editor and Publisher article. I decided to use it anyway, even though I was complaning about plagiarism and hypocrisy...|W|P|115219545230484245|W|P|Coulter Caught Borrowing Liberally|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Eli Blake|W|P|If she is borrowing from the San Francisco Chronicle and the L.A. Times, it sounds like they aren't exactly the monolithically liberal papers that the conservative pit bulls like to accuse them of being.I wrote about Coulter in the wake of the 9/11 widows incident as follows (after properly attributing a letter I quoted, respecting both the original source and the first rule of writing):
No one has suggested that there is anything wrong with rebutting anything that the 9/11 widows (or others who have spoken out against Bush policy after suffering personal tragedy) say. For example if one of the 9/11 widows (or Cindy Sheehan, or Mary Tillman, or whoever else) quotes a statistic, anyone is welcome to dispute it, challenge it or rebut it with appropriate data. Coulter's frustration (and the frustration on the part of many on the right) is a product of the fact that it is difficult to find a way to attack people like this personally. Personal smears have long been a staple of the right wing attack machine, and Coulter stands out as one who simply is incapable of debating any other way. To ask her to seriously debate issues without resorting to some sort of personal attack is like asking Jay Leno to deliver his monologue without telling any jokes, or asking Mark Cuban not to talk about basketball. Coulter just isn't capable of debating issues seriously, so she has to resort to personal attacks. Maybe the 9/11 widows or the others will force her to actually consider how to debate issues on the issues (or at least expose how vacuous she is, once you take away her attack bludgeon).
Art Jacobson|W|P|And here I thought the reference was a rif on "Drinking Liberally." Art Jacobson|W|P|And here I thought the reference was a rif on "Drinking Liberally." James R MacLean|W|P|Masochistically read the opening pages of her book, Godless. They are taken verbatim from paragraph 1, chapter 1 of Joseph A. Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. However, Coulter substitutes "liberalism" for "Marxism."Accusing her of unattributed quotations is a little bit like accusing Jeffrey Dahmer of bad breath. The breezy equation of totally unrelated things, the snarling administration of egregious lies, the palimpsest of deceit--this is odious enough.
Tony GOPrano|W|P|Ted, you secretly love Ann Colter, I know it, everyone knows it. You can only dream of her Teddie, makes ya wanna be a Republican doesn't it? (ha ha!) Sorry there aren't any hot liberal babes you can dream of? Ann only goes with us GOP men; and the GOP don't stand for Grand Old Party either...LOL!!! Tedski|W|P|Are you telling me that you guys actually find this woman "hot"?Wow, y'all are different from us then. I don't find overly skinny, aging but still think they are 23 women sexy. Sorry.
Eli Blake|W|P|It's an honor to think the same way you think.What is concerning is how many of those things seem to have a parallel today, what with the President usurping the powers of Congress and the Courts with his 'signing letters' that exempt himself 'if necessary for national security (he decides),' the taxation without representation of half a million Americans who happen to reside in the District of Columbia, for trying to hold people indefinitely or by tribunals which deny the right of trial by jury, including getting the 'precedent established' in court for U.S. citizens via the Jose Padilla case, for the process of 'rendition' by which alleged terrorists (he defines who they are) are transported in some cases beyond the seas for trial, for dividing people against each other, not yet to the point of insurrection, but certainly to the point of hatred, distrust and attempts at repression, and for changing laws so as to introduce elements of absolute rule.
No, not a perfect
So, I walk into Democratic headquarters the other day, and I saw this button that said "Spitzer-Paterson 2006." I was a bit preturbed, I mean, why would we have buttons for Marc Spitzer and Greg Patterson? In my haste to be angry and everything, I didn't stop to think that there would be no "ticket" like this, nor did I notice that a "t" was missing.
It turns out, the buttons were for the New York Democratic ticket of Elliot Spitzer and David Paterson. Oops.
And speaking of Espresso Pundit, our man Patterson with two "t"s, he had a bit this weekend about Russ Jones, who's name may be struck from the ballot. I remember in the run-up to the law suit, it was alleged that he had signed off on the back of petitions he couldn't have possibly circulated since he was nearly 200 miles away in Phoenix. I don't know if this was the problem that finally got his signatures bounced, but it is rather common. It happens because either a candidate discovers that their volunteers did not sign the back of their petitions that they had walked, or a candidate wants to be able to brag that they got all the signatures themelves.
Well, Jones may have a problem. The Democrats are also claiming that Jones would even be unable to run in a Republican primary as a write-in. This would leave the Republicans without a viable candidate against Amanda Aguirre. But, Patterson says:
The Republicans are going to have to work hard to mount an effective write in campaign for the Primary, but getting 207 write in votes isn't that difficult. It looks to me like this is just a bump in the road for Jones...and a fairly small bump at that.It might be helpful to remind Patterson that getting 207 write-in votes may be easy, but it also shouldn't be that hard to get 207 valid signatures, right?|W|P|115193894697229580|W|P|Yes, Greg, I Suppose You Are Right, but...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
That may happen, but here is what I'm talking about: this may only be the second time since 1982 that Joe Sweeney, professor at the well known Alexander Hamilton Law School, will not appear on a congressional election ballot.
A challenge to Sweeney's nomination signatures is being issued by Alan Lageschulte, who lives in Avondale. It is entirely coincidental, I'm sure, that former Avondale Mayor Ron Drake is the other Republican candidate in the primary. The attorney handling the case is former aide to Gov. FIfe Symington Lisa Hauser. She is experienced in election cases, she handled then Gov. George Bush's challenges to the results in Broward County, FL back in 2000.
The only previous challenge to Joe Sweeney's candidacy was back in 1992, when Democratic candidate Jim Toeves (two Toeves references in one week!) took Sweeney off the Democratic primary ballot that year. This whole incident became more pathetic when Sweeney decided to run as a write-in in the New Alliance Party's primary, which had one member in the district. Sweeney didn't live in the district, but only needed to convince the single member of the party to vote for him in the primary. The guy apparently did not show up at the polls.
I'm suprised that Sweeney's petitions haven't been challenged more often. He isn't too careful about who signs his petitions. For example, I was asked by Sweeney himself (twice!) to sign, despite the fact that I don't live in the district and am not a member of his party. These are both facts that I explained to him.
Interestingly, Sweeney never tried to run as a Green or a Libertarian.
Sweeney almost captured the Republican nomination in 2002, and actually was the Republican nominee in 2004. Hauser, a pretty high placed Republican opperative, is probably involved to save the Republicans the embarassment of having this guy represent their party again. One may remember that in 2004, local Republicans refused to cooperate with the racist and a bit unhinged Sweeney. Even though the local Republicans condemned him, the state party put his name and likeness on some materials, which gave the Democrats fodder for a few press releases.
Lageshulte and Hauser are out to save Drake from the embarassment of being defeated by Sweeney in a primary. Far less embarassing to be beaten by Raúl Grijalva in the general election, I guess.
When Sweeney won in 2004, the excuse that was given was that he has such great name ID, it was hard for the other candidates to overcome it. So, the fact that hundreds of his signs have been wheat pasted to newspaper boxes, dumpsters and any other vertical surface for the last two decades makes it so difficult for any candidate to run against him. I don't buy this as an excuse. If Sweeney wins a primary, it could be because a large number of Republican primary voters in CD 7 buy into his twisted views of the world and think that a man of his dubious qualifications would make a great congressman. I hope is is more because they don't pay a lot of attention when they vote, which is not saying a heck of a lot either.
I am glad that Drake's people are getting him taken off of the ballot, though. We really don't need this guy involved in the political process.|W|P|115193387451369390|W|P|Sweeney Tossed?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com Michael Bryan|W|P|I disagree that we don't need Sweeny involved in the political process. One very important reason for political life is as a public morality tale. I can't think of a better one than the GOP being repeatedly bitten in the ass by the worst racist nativist prejudices that it appeals to. Sweeny lets voters know who the GOP really are, depite their protestations.