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."

Lubin 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."

7/12/2006 06:18:00 AM|W|P| Kralmajales|W|P|In this past Saturday's Tucson Citizen, Blake Morlock stated that this Clean Elections issue "is either a slumbering volcano that Weiss recognizes and every pollster in America has missed, or it is a bizarre cul-de-sac the race has detoured into for the sake of a fight."

I think it is the latter and it is an attack. The clean elections issue has been used to try to link Giffords as special interest bought and paid. There is no evidence at all except a fantasyland linkage between a donation from Rip Wilson to an obscure committee vote on a bill that would have never passed in an million years. But that portray that as "taking money from Walmart" to get progressives all riled up. Some have even suggested that she is corrupt. I am sure we will hear more of this in the posts that follow mine.

I will ask this though. Patty Weiss has claimed to be the frontrunner in this race with her poll showing she is 10 points ahead. What on earth makes her want to attack Giffords then? It goes against any strategy I know of for a frontrunner to do and I think it will backfire.

Anyone who didn't hear, Giffords was attacked at the Wilcox debate after saying she supported Clean elections with a near Reagan style line of "Gabby, Gabby, Gabby." I am sure someone will post a YouTube video almost immediately. Go ahead and look at it and again ask what Weiss and her campaign is up to...especially as you hear what follows.

Weiss has tried and tried to get endorsements of the same "special interests" (unions, pro-choice groups, environmental groups, etc) and has failed. She has also tried to raise special interest money and it has worked for her some, but it has also failed overall.

As the Skinny reported this past week, Weiss is trying hard to take Giffords strengths of better organization, endorsements, and superior fundraising and link it to corruption. I hope that the voters will see these attacks for what they truly are.7/12/2006 06:53:00 AM|W|P| sirocco|W|P|Weiss is definitely trying to set a negative tone, and I agree it isn't the style of a "frontrunner" ... in fact, I believe she's conceded as much recently.

Weiss can complain all she likes about special-interest money, but she has taken some for this race, and would have more if she could have snagged a few endorsements which went to Giffords. She can tout her press release all she wants, but the statement by Bozack makes clear claims by Weiss or her supporters that Giffords "has not supported clean elections" are simply hogwash.

Weiss' unsubstantiated insinuations on the Scott show weren't exactly the epitome of class either.

Between being a hypocrite concerning PAC contributions and her Rovian radio appearance, Weiss has lost a lot of the respect I had for her.7/12/2006 09:10:00 AM|W|P| AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Oh, give me a break. Gabby's blog squad never had any respect for Patty.

Art's been dissing her on petty issues since day one.

Do you really think that a pro like Frank Costanzo would let Patty make a mountain out of a molehill if there wasn't an upside? As everyone's noted, Patty's done polling -- to figure out what it says, you just have to read between the lines.

The clean elections dust-up tells me that Patty's polling showed her target voters (for the primary, at least) respond strongly to clean elections as an issue.

Will this be the defining issue for the race? I doubt it. But it's been a successful detour for Patty, it's kept Gabby from defining any other issues, and it's gotten the race more mainstream press than anything prior.7/12/2006 09:20:00 AM|W|P| kralmajales|W|P|AZYOULIKEIT:

That was one of my points. This was a poll tested issue. A poll driven attack. It doesn't seem genuine as she claims the holier than thou mantel on this issue.7/12/2006 09:26:00 AM|W|P| boredinaz|W|P|If that's true, that's terribly sad for your district. With all that is going on in this country and the world, illegal immigration, a 300 billion dollar deficit, a bogged down conflict in Iraq, no future for social security, lack of affordable health care, you truly think this is the biggest issue on CD8 voter's minds?!!!

Even if this is a legitimate bone to pick with Giffords (and I think there are better ones), the election of Patty Weiss will not give us a clean elections system in the federal government for several reasons, the most obvious of which is that the people who stand to lose most directly are the 535 intrenched incumbents who would have to vote for it to become law. The reelection rate in the House is over 90% and they like it that way. They're not going to do anything about it.

Drop this nonsense and get back to fighting about real issues. Otherwise, the Republican candidates will define the election for you.7/12/2006 09:55:00 AM|W|P| sirocco|W|P|azyoulikeit,

Obviously Weiss (or her campaign) sees an upside, or they wouldn't be doing what they do. Whether they are correct is a different question.

Soooo ... having said that ... what does it say about her as a candidate that she would stoop to making allegations she _admits_ she is not prepared to substantiate (something which should be completely against her journalistic instincts to boot) in an attempt to improve her polling numbers?7/12/2006 10:19:00 AM|W|P| FEDUP|W|P|Roger, you keep saying Weiss went after the same special interests.

I don't see a Wal-Mart lobbyist or Eddie Basha on her list of donors, so how can you falsely claim that?

A union endorsement and money isn't the same as a corrupt corporation or a union-buster grocery mogul.

Border, I think corruption IS the main issue and the reason there is a war and immigration issue to begin with. Connect the dots.7/12/2006 11:36:00 AM|W|P| Sonoran Sam|W|P|I'm getting kinda tired of reading that Giffords is "pro-Wal-Mart" because she voted for a bill that helped low-wage employees obtain AHCCCS coverage.
AHCCCS is nothing more than Medicaid provided through an HMO. It ain't no bowl of tax-free cherries.
If she voted for a measure that allowed low-paid single moms to get medical coverage for her kids, that's pro-Wal-Mart?
Only a limousine liberal would make such an argument.7/12/2006 12:05:00 PM|W|P| sirocco|W|P|Fedup,

An individual who works for Walmart, in whatever capacity, is not a special interest.

I work for a company. I have made contributions to Giffords' campaigns. Giffords neither knows nor cares what company I work for. My contributions in no way are associated to any vote for or against the company I work for.

I'm glad to hear you are ok with union endorsements, since Giffords has the majority of them.7/12/2006 01:02:00 PM|W|P| TooBlue4U|W|P|Funny that all I hear from Giffords supporters is whining about attacks.
That's the response of people who can't debate the merits of the arguement.
I've got news for you: an attack would've been bad-mouthing your girl for her personal relationships when the opportunity arose, but that's not going to happen from the Weiss camp. They're running "clean" in more ways than one.
Pointing out your girl's record is called campaigning. If your girl can't stand it now, I fear how she would react in the hallowed halls of Congress.
So, how about some points about WHY your girl's never run a clean campaign? Huh? It's a fair question and so far the only response she's given voters is whining.7/12/2006 01:06:00 PM|W|P| TooBlue4U|W|P|Oh, yeah, and while I'm at it..
The idea that voters don't care about the clean campaigns issue is another red herring.
I've got two words for you: "abrahamoff" and "cunningham." If voters in this district don't care about the influence of money in elections then I'm a monkey's uncle.
So, again, I ask, how about answering the question: Why hasn't GG ever run clean?7/12/2006 01:07:00 PM|W|P| FEDUP|W|P|Sonoran Sam, spin it anyway you want but the fact remains, she voted for a huge corporate welfare package by voting against the bill.7/12/2006 01:15:00 PM|W|P| FEDUP|W|P|sirocco said...Fedup,
"An individual who works for Walmart, in whatever capacity, is not a special interest."

Maybe in your perverse world a lobbyist for Wal-Mart isn't considered a 'special interest'. I know a union of hundreds of thousands of members that would say otherwise.

If you are a professional lobbyist for your company, then you ARE a special interest. Don't compare apples to oranges. Giffords knows it was a corrupt vote or she would have come out with a response months ago.

You have to come up with a better one than that.

I am not okay with union money. I would prefer total Clean Elections with no PACs at all. Maybe with a progressive in Congress working with the other progressive eventually it will become reality.

Don't sweat it. I still think your candidate will win the primary. She just won't win the general.7/12/2006 01:41:00 PM|W|P| Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.7/12/2006 01:45:00 PM|W|P| Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|Its sad that Gabby can't get past her very own self made traps and evasions.

Voting for Walmart and against the Arizona taxpayers cost the state tens of millions of dollars for health care.

Supporting Clean Elections with funding from special interests is a new twist on free speech. Gabby took special interest money to help pay for her brave stand supporting Clean Elections.

It must work, because she is so popular and well liked for these difficult and complex decisions.

If only we had the brains to match Gabby's genius. Then we could understand what the political bosses know about the greatest gal who ever ran for CD 8.

This is all so convincing, that I might have to reregister as an Independent so that I can defend Gabby against these horrible progressives. Roger Kralmajales is taking the lead in turning Gabby Democrats into Independents and Republicans. You got me onboard... for now.7/12/2006 02:43:00 PM|W|P| 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.7/12/2006 02:45:00 PM|W|P| 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 remarks7/12/2006 02:57:00 PM|W|P| sirocco|W|P|Fedup,

I disagree with your postulate. An individual is separate from his job. If I give money in my own name, I am giving it on my behalf.

Now, if a lobbyist arranges for a PAC to give money, that's a different matter. But individual contributions are just that -- individual contributions.

It's not debatable Weiss has accepted PAC money, and has competed for endorsements and money from others Giffords eventually received. You don't even deny that, you simply try to spin the point.


Tooblue,

The claims made by Weiss on the radio show weren't concerned with Giffords' record. They were allegations Weiss admitted in the same breath she could not support, but by God she was gonna throw them out anyway, you know, just in case they stuck.7/12/2006 03:49:00 PM|W|P| anonymous|W|P|Are you a betting man?

Word of mouth trumps almost every Hollywood rollout.

Word of mouth has pretty much destroyed Gabby's media blitz in advance, and it has changed her positions from pro-busines democrat to a progressive that takes special interest money so she can work to eliminate special interest money by promising to support Clean Elections.7/12/2006 03:57:00 PM|W|P| boredinaz|W|P|Border, I think corruption IS the main issue and the reason there is a war and immigration issue to begin with. Connect the dots.

Even though you got the name wrong, I'm going to assume you meant me, fedup. So let me turn the question back on you.

Connect the dots for me. I have heard nothing about what Patty Weiss will do to fix this "corruption" that is supposedly "the reason there is a war and immigration issue to begin with." All I have heard is how Giffords is part of the problem.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that these allegations are true: this "girl" Giffords, (as tooblue so condescendingly calls her), is the second coming of Duke Cunningham because she has never taken taxpayer money for her campaigns. Weiss' attack does nothing to tell anyone why Patty Weiss, who has also never run clean, would be any different if elected to Congress instead of Giffords.

What does she propose to do if elected to office? How will she, as one of 535, change the system? How will she address the constitutional issues inherent in any campaign finance reform? Does she think Buckley v. Valeo should be overturned? If so, how does she expect to do this when it was just upheld by the Supreme Court? How is she going to get done what no previous House or Senate member has been able to accomplish before, including McCain (whose original bill was greatly changed b/c of complaints from special interests)? How will she work with reform opponents like Mitch McConnell and his House counterparts to prevent blocks to her plans?

Unless or until I hear a positive plan of action from Weiss instead of negative attacks, I can't take this issue seriously.

Part of the problem with the Dems is that they have been defined as what they are against rather than what they are for. That is why they lose, because negative attacks don't move people to vote for someone. Mostly, they just turn people off and most will just stay home. In a district with such close registration numbers, that's a fatal mistake.7/12/2006 04:53:00 PM|W|P| sirocco|W|P|Just as an aside ... ain't it kind of fun to see how fast any post about CD8 on any reasonably well-read blog fills up with comments pretyt quickly?7/12/2006 05:35:00 PM|W|P| Mister T in AZ|W|P|As an outsider -- I have to say the supporters of these two campaigns are embarssing the candidates they are fighting for.

Seriously - you all look like a bunch of petty idiots.

A few things, and I'm prepared for the flame war I'm about to start:

1) This Clean Elections Support question is an attack, sure - I guess -- but it isn't a NEGATIVE attack - it is an issue attack. By running for office, you open yourself up to criticism by the public and your opponent for your views, inconsistencies with what you say vs. what you do, and your trustworthiness. If you feel like having those things questioned is unfair -- or somehow NEGATIVE then running for office isn't your thing. The more I hear from Gabby supporters that Weiss has turned this into some super negative campaign - the less credibility her supporters have in my eyes. Want negative campaigning? Look at the swift boats, Max Cleland, what Bush did to McCain in South Carolina ... not a discussion on support of clean elections. Seriously folks -- it is indisputable that Gabby HAS NOT RUN CLEAN ... the debate is over what that means. That debate is a fair one - so have it and stop bitching to each other about how NASTY it is.

2) There is no such thing as a way a frontrunner should be. If Weiss thinks she needs to fight and keep fighting despite being up in opinion polls - more credit to her - it means she wants to win and realizes that polls don't mean anything. Personally if I was on the Gabby campaign I would EMBRACE the underdog thing - use it to rally support, use it create a narrative in the press about the "little engine who could" and take advantage of people thinking I was behind to get stories in the media about MOMENTUM as I started to close the gap (which I think everyone believes will close).

2) Back to clean elections - instead of going back and forth about who likes it more ... why doesn't one of these candidates show their support by going out there and helping collect fives for those candidates currently on the ballot who still need help! Be public about it ... show everyone how much you care about the system.

3) Do we have any evidence that Patty has given $5 contributions to candidates in the past? As someone pretty new to the political scene (which in my opinion can be a definite strength) I bet she hasn't given as many fives as gabby has. Can't someone find this out to stop the nonsense. And bringing that up wouldn't be negative folks, it would just be good campaigning.

4) If I was a Latas campaign person, I'd be scrambling to get in a public debate with these two women, pull a Paul Tsongas and when it started getting nasty jump into the middle and talk about how important it is to respect your opponents and engage a disenchanted public. Of course this means the Latas supporters have to stop jumping on EVERYTHING trying to draw blood. Seriously - hold your fire for a little and see if taking the high ground is going to give your fledgling candidacy a boost. Hell, if the fight they get into is about clean elections - show your support for them and then pivot to issues that are more important and need to be addressed NOW.

5) Party leaders need to find ways NOW to address the embarassment that is the supporters of D CD 8 candidates fighting and the potentional fo the candidates themselves to go negative (again negative means personal, not talking about why a candidate shoudldn't earn support). I read how in Massachussetts a panel was commissioned by the party, which included Dukakis and other big name notables, to determine if ads etc were NEGATIVE. And if they were - they will come out and criticize the person who did it. Not sure if this is a good idea (might perpetuate the pissing matches) but maybe a littler deterance would go a long way. Aside from that - we need to see a bunch of CD8 social gatherings toward issues we all care about to show how disagreement in a primary is fine - but we all need to be working on the same team NOW on other issues, and against the GOP nominee the day after the primary ends.

6) How badly do you guys wish you had a Harry Mitchell down there!

Look, I get it. I'm not from CD8 so maybe this is none of my business and I'm butting in where I shouldn't. But here is the deal - this is my state too, my country too - and the potential we have in CD8 to get a democrat in office to help Grijalva, and Pastor, and maybe even Mitchell is way too precious to be blown with petty supporter fighting and disunity. So, I argue -- it is my business and I might as well say something now.

Go ahead ... flame away. What are the odds that there is someone out there who agrees with me on this!7/12/2006 05:36:00 PM|W|P| Mister T in AZ|W|P|Crap -- I numbered wrong!7/12/2006 08:33:00 PM|W|P| Dogma|W|P|Mr. T,

I have to concur with your sentiment. Though you are correct, you're going to draw a lot of fire ;-)

Good luck to you and Harry. I'm rooting for him!7/12/2006 08:57:00 PM|W|P| 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.7/12/2006 09:04:00 PM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|Then again, maybe not a whole lot of folks.

Maybe a dozen or so bloggers.7/12/2006 09:50:00 PM|W|P| Yo Se Quien Soy|W|P|Mister T,

Amen! I agree with all of your thoughts and have been extremely worried about the aftermath of the Primary for my district. Bottom line is that the bloggers for Latas and Weiss need to stick to the issues, and quit being petty.7/12/2006 10:35:00 PM|W|P| FEDUP|W|P|boredinaz, sorry for the name mix-up. I did mean you.

You don't know what Patty is for? I don't think you have been paying attention then. She has talked plenty on the campaign trail on what she is for. She has differentiated herself too.

I bet your candidate wishes he had moved on that Clean Elections issue. ;)

It is supposed to be Weiss's, Latas's and Giffords', but since the papers can't get it right, I just use their version. It has to do with the Z sound versus the S on when to add the 's or leave as s'.

Maybe the joke will be on all of us and Shacter will win.

sirocco, I see you completely avoided the issue once again, that he was a Wal-Mart PAID lobbyist.

Mister T, love your post. Nothing like a post bitching...about people's bitching. :)

Yo Se Quien Soy, "the bloggers for Latas and Weiss..." So you are saying Giffords' bloggers don't have to?

You all seriously crack me up. I love coming on here and TDP.7/13/2006 05:51:00 AM|W|P| sirocco|W|P|Fedup,

No, I recognize the point you are trying to make, I just disagree with it.

The donation he made as an individual can't simply be attributed to Walmart. If the money came from Walmart, or a Walmart PAC then fine. The money came from his own pocket, that's a different matter.

Just bcause someone works for Walmart, even as a _paid_ lobbyist, doesn't mean they give up their rights to support individual campaigns as they see fit.

Given the money was apparently an individual contribution, it's most likely Giffords wasn't even aware it had been made until she saw a donor's list. It was probably mailed in, just like most individual donations are, and processed, just like most donations are, and whoever processed it probably didn't even recognize the name.7/13/2006 07:31:00 AM|W|P| TooBlue4U|W|P|So, Rex, "one vote" doesn't make a trend. Okay, I'll give you that. But her record as a business person doesn't help. Did she refuse to give her own employees bennies as a benevolent gesture - so they could get AHCCCS? That puts her solidly in the pro-business, anti-worker camp as far as this progressive is concerned.

As to the comment that GG gets "open-minded Repubs" to consider her.. That has been my main problem with her as a candidate if she were to win the primary. She's a conservative, so naturally she'd be appealing to moderates. Put her in the general against a republican and I say she loses because middle to left-leaners stay home because they won't be motivated for her and middle to righties will vote gop. Latas motivates, for sure. No denying that. But he sure hasn't got much traction in this campaign. I see this election from a much larger perspective than the party insiders who are so pissed that Weiss dare to compete against their heir apparent. The issue is that it's critical to the NATION to take this seat from the GOP. If the local demos would take a bigger picture look they'd see that, too. I don't think GG can win in the general and I think Weiss can. That's more important than local demos saving face because they jumped on w/ GG two years ago.7/13/2006 08:31:00 AM|W|P| Kralmajales|W|P|But tooblue4you...

When you say that she is conservative and pro-business, you gloss over the fact that she also has solid liberal credentials that attract me (as a liberal independent) and a host of others helping with her campaign. It has also attracted the endorsements of liberal organizations.

Here, again, is some of the record that attract left to center Democrats and that should make them want to turn our for her in the fall.

100% ratings from environmental groups.

100% ratings from Pro-choice groups.

100% ratings from disability and community action groups.

Go to www.vote-smart.org and look up her voting record on liberal and conservative issues. If you are liberal you will find much to like in Gabrielle Giffords.

I respect what Mr. T has said. I have been vocal but it has been to try to address these charges that she is so very conservative and won't be distinguished from the Republicans. That is just wrong. Period. No flame here, but the attempts here have been, again, to portray Giffords as somehow corrupt and conservative. It is very misleading.

Best to all.7/13/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P| AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Sirocco said: "Barring some development of real significance"...

You mean like voting?

I don't see how anyone can think Gabby is walking away with this nomination when all the polls (and please don't give me the BS line about there only being one poll -- we all know there are multiple polls) are showing Gabby with a big gap to make up.

As I've said before, half a million bucks of TV will go a long way, but Gabby has to pick off the undecideds by a 2-1 margin over Patty to make up that deficit. Not impossible, but certainly not easy in a 5-way race.7/13/2006 09:30:00 AM|W|P| outlander|W|P|How much did Walmart, MCDonalds, and Bashas save when SB1065 died in committee, courtesy of Gabby and the Republicans?

Was it 10 million? 20 million?

Or just the $300 check Rip Wilson paid to stop a bill that would have made these corporations less of a welfare leach on Arizona taxpayers?

Gabby's people forget that this one vote did maximum damage:

to Arizona taxpayers
to uninsured workers
to Giffords for Congress

Her money started drying up, both over her Walmart/McDonald/Basha support to kill SB1065, and the perception that she is a snotty lightweight who cannot defend the indefensible (like the Gabber Bloggers,) regarding Clean Elections and special interest bankrolls.7/13/2006 09:39:00 AM|W|P| George Tuttle|W|P|Meanwhile..Jeff Latas keeps on addressing the issues that CAN be solved.

These two catfighters are doing nothing to help ordinary American's who need Health Insurance and clean air to breathe.

Latas' is showing he is the only candidate serious about solving the issues that matter.7/13/2006 09:54:00 AM|W|P| outlander|W|P|Jeff is a good candidate and a great person.

But he is not the only candidate who supports universal or single payer health care.

Francine Schacter and Alex Rodriguez also support this need. And we of course know that this is Patty's number one issue, while Jeff is touting the energy politics for his #1 bullet.7/13/2006 10:25:00 AM|W|P| Kralmajales|W|P|Energy politics, Outlander, certainly, but don't forget his anti-war stance and his foreign affairs policy...which are linked.

As to that committee vote you keep bringing up. That would have never made it anywhere in either the House or the Senate. Sometimes legislators have other reasons for voting against a bill than what you are suggesting, which is protecing corporations.

I am sure you will get an explanation for that vote, but I am not sure you will care what it is.

Outlander is only interested in fictionally tying Giffords to corruptive corporate interests and is a lot less interested in her overall record...it appears.7/13/2006 10:29:00 AM|W|P| outlander|W|P|Not so. Gabby does her own tying. Her overall record would show she votes with Steve Huffman about 2/3 of the time.

Research it, Roger. And then report the facts. What is the huffman:giffords voting ratio?

Is it better or worse than say, Marsha Arzberger? Marsha is at least as conservative as many of the Republicans.

Marsha voted against SB1065. Are all the horrible accusations regarding this vote the same for Marsha Arzberger? How did she get it so wrong?7/13/2006 10:30:00 AM|W|P| Kralmajales|W|P|AZYOULIKEIT:

The polls you keep mentioning do have Weiss in the lead. However, do not make the fallacy of projecting that the results of that poll mean anything at all for the future. It is a great fallacy to say that everything will remains the same and that someone has to count on the undecideds to break.

Polls are snapshots in time. The polls you speak of appear to present a picture of a person with a lot of name recognition already capturing attention with that name rec. The truth is that future snapshots could show Weiss leading by more or Giffords narrowing that gap.

If Giffords does, though, be big and aware what Mr. T. said (not "I pity that fool"), but that if Giffords or Latas narrow that gap...the release of that poll will only prove to them strong strong momentum and it will only prove to rock the campaign of Weiss.

Hope she intends on lower expectations...because she set them quite high.7/13/2006 10:31:00 AM|W|P| boredinaz|W|P|Just as an aside ... ain't it kind of fun to see how fast any post about CD8 on any reasonably well-read blog fills up with comments pretyt quickly?

sirroco,
So true. I'm not even in CD8 and I don't have a dog in this fight, but I've been sucked into the vortex these guys have created just by reading the posts.
Help!7/13/2006 10:40:00 AM|W|P| boredinaz|W|P|fedup,
As i said earlier, i'm not in your district. i'm reading from up north of the Gila. So, think of me as someone who is only partially paying attention. A person who doesn't go to the candidate forums, trashes the junk mail before reading it, skims the daily paper and doesn't read blogs or volunteer. Y'know, the average voter.

Is this the impression you want to leave about your candidate? Think about it. (and that goes for all of you people, no matter who you support)7/13/2006 10:50:00 AM|W|P| Kralmajales|W|P|Outlander claims that Giffords is more like Huffman than the rest of the democratic party. That she even votes with him 2/3 of the time.

I would take a look, again, a ProjectVoteSmart and look up both Huffman and Giffords under interest group ratings. On votes of interest to them, check out his ratings and hers.

I'll make it easy:

Huffman

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CAZ52234

Giffords

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=MAZ92676

You will find similarities between the on pro-choice issues, but he rates lower some years than she does. You will also find her environmental record to be far more liberal than his (although he doesn't seem to chop trees either).

Cattlemen association...he does well...she got an F.

Come on...quit distorting.7/13/2006 10:58:00 AM|W|P| outlander|W|P|Roger,

Blogs are snapshots in time, with archives.

Your analysis is so skewed, that the humor you inspire makes you seem like a pundit for the Daily Planet... on planet Bizarro.

Roger sez:
...
"The truth is that future snapshots could show Weiss leading by more or Giffords narrowing that gap.

If Giffords does, though, be big and aware what Mr. T. said (not "I pity that fool"), but that if Giffords or Latas narrow that gap...the release of that poll will only prove to them strong strong momentum and it will only prove to rock the campaign of Weiss.

Hope she intends on lower expectations...because she set them quite high."....

How many hypotheticals not based on any fact can you count dancing in the above mentioned quote?

To paraphrase the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance:

When the hypotheticals become facts, print the hypotheticals.

From Liberty Valance:

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend,"

None of Roger Krals hypotheticals are facts... facts are for reporters, not pundits and politicians.7/13/2006 11:00:00 AM|W|P| outlander|W|P|Roger, get Gabby and Huffman's records, not summaries of their overall votes.

Their records are not a summary from VoteSmart.7/13/2006 11:06:00 AM|W|P| 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.7/13/2006 11:20:00 AM|W|P| sirocco|W|P|azyoulikeit, that quote you lead your last post with should have been attributed to x4mr, not me.

Having said that, I don't think anyone has claimed Giffords is "walking away" with anything.

oulander refers to one vote to kill a bill in comittee, and claims it somehow cost millions of dallars in funding ... for a bill that was so flawed it's original sponsor voted against it, had no means of enforcement anyhow, and would still have had to pass a general floor vote (which outlander seems to forget), which wasn't gonna happen anyway.

Outlander, I haven't taken the time to research this, but I suspect you could take just about any two members of the legislature at random, research all their votes, and find they vote the same way well over half the time.

There are many issues that tend to pass (or get voted down) with large majorities from both parties, which would skew results in that direction.

Just an off-the-cuff thought ... I haven't look at any real numbers to test this.7/13/2006 12:03:00 PM|W|P| Kralmajales|W|P|I haven't claimed that Giffords will walk away with it either. I do think that expectations can indeed be meaningful...if exceeded...or not met. As Mr. T. asserted so well earlier.

The fact that I was stating was that polls are snapshots in time and reality can change a day, a week, or a month later. We can't count on the same folks who said they support any candidate to remain that way and we can't count on undecideds to break anyway or remain undecided.

The prediction you make from this is based on that moment when those likely primary voters were called. Some have never heard of Jeff Latas or Gabrielle Giffords. But they will. A lot had heard of Patty.

All else I said was indeed hypothetical and analysis. That's all...I admit it.

Since you lead off saying that blogs are archived, you can come back and make fun of me more later (smile).7/13/2006 12:39:00 PM|W|P| George Tuttle|W|P|Outlander said regarding single payer health care:
"And we of course know that this is Patty's number one issue,"

Bull%$#@ outlander. She has stated publicly that federal clean elections are her number one priority. (Although she did in the early forums talked about health care-but then she started nailing Gabby on her clean elections non-use) I have heard it and others on the blogs have heard it as well.

Well, unless she is switching around...again...7/15/2006 10:31:00 AM|W|P| anonymous|W|P|Weiss has always said health is her number one priority, not issue.

A distinction where nothing can be solved regarding her priorities if the issue of campaign financing is never reformed.

How can you reform health care when all of the HMOs have paid for the campaigns of people like Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton.

Jeff Latas can't get his priority of lessening energy dependence and its complexities past the lobbies of Congress, unless the lobbyists can only advocate, not pass checks along with their requests.

Either way the irony is that for either health care reform or energy reform, you must serve on the Energy and Commerce committee to effect any meaningful change.

Either Jeff or Patty would be great on this committee in Congress.7/15/2006 02:27:00 PM|W|P| outlander|W|P|Call her and ask her George.7/15/2006 06:27:00 PM|W|P| judnag|W|P|The Weiss Campaign is desperate - they can't raise money and can't get the support they thought they had. Weiss's ridiculous attack on Giffords at the Nucleus Club was childish and foolish - and her information was absolutely wrong. I'm supporting Giffords because of her solid record - fighting for us, the people!7/16/2006 03:54:00 AM|W|P| sirocco|W|P|Hey, those HMO's aren't just paying for the campaigns of Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton, they are paying for the campaign of Patty Weiss as well.7/11/2006 05:50:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|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.com7/12/2006 09:34:00 AM|W|P| boredinaz|W|P|I am so confused. What the heck was Olsen trying to say there? She wants the US to become more like the monarchical colony it used to be? Huh?

Those people put the irony in the term 'think tank.'7/11/2006 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Greg Patterson over at Espresso Pundit found a story on a website called American Chronicle. First off, the article claims that Sheriff Joe Arpaio's rather unsuccessful illegal alien round up didn't work because of interference from the Mexican Consulate. It couldn't be because the whole thing is driven more by publicity than actual law enforcement, right? But the part that Patterson decides to emphasize and quote is an allegation that illegal aliens are funding the campaigns of Janet Napolitano and John McCain. This is ridiculous on so many levels. Let me get this right though: people that are being hired precisely because they can get paid less than American workers are throwing enough money at politicians that it is influencing their decisions? Yeah. That sounds right. One of the sillier memes that some Republican activists and elected officials have bought into over the last few years is that Napolitano and Raúl Grijalva only won on the votes of "illegal aliens." That's right, these guys are crossing into our country, hiding from authorities, but they register to vote and give money to politicians. Makes perfect sense. I hope that Patterson is repeating these allegations to show how ridiculous they are. It seems that any politician who gets any sort of Hispanic support has this one thrown at them these days. Somehow, they see Hispanics supporting a candidate, and assume that they all hopped the fence last week. I am not sure if they throw this around to discredit politicians who they don't agree with, or if they buy into the bias that all Hispanics, citizens or not, are illegitimate Americans.|W|P|115263030006578811|W|P|If You Don't Agree With Me, You Must Be an Illegal Alien|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/11/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P| boredinaz|W|P|Sorry, tedski, but i think you're giving Patterson too much credit. Whenever he sees a story he thinks is out of line or unsupported by the facts, he picks it apart from the headline to the last period. He's done it many times and he isn't shy about it (especially when it comes to Arizona Republic columnist Jon Talton, who he was stalking for a while).

The fact that he posted long quotes from it and linked to it w/o any more comment than "is this true?" and "read for yourself" means he's taking the chicken's way out, wanting others to believe that nonsense but not having the cojones to put his considerable analytical skills to use.

It's a copout.7/11/2006 01:20:00 PM|W|P| Michael|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.7/11/2006 06:04:00 PM|W|P| phx kid|W|P|Michael you are very close. We did stop donating thanks to clean elections. A few $5 bills here and there and we’re done.

Stop voting? Dream on.7/11/2006 07:23:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|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.com7/10/2006 05:39:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|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.com7/10/2006 09:07:00 PM|W|P| phx kid|W|P|Keep trying. The race is no longer even in the top 10 according to Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post.7/10/2006 09:28:00 PM|W|P| George Tuttle|W|P|Chris Cizzila is a meathead.

I think you Republicans have said the same thing in 2004 when he was predicting the Democrats would take back the house.

Then again, aren't you Republicans reading the moonie rag??7/10/2006 10:24:00 PM|W|P| phx kid|W|P|I would respond George but between all your invectives I was not able to understand what you were trying to say.7/11/2006 06:14:00 AM|W|P| sirocco|W|P|Regardless of whether Kyl will win or lose (IMO he'll win easily), it doesn't change the fact his little attempted rewrite of history was disgustingly manipulative, and clearly merits censure.7/11/2006 02:06:00 PM|W|P| 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.7/11/2006 03:27:00 PM|W|P| boredinaz|W|P|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.

That condescending stereotype is proof positive that Democrats have a long way to go.7/11/2006 06:09:00 PM|W|P| 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.7/11/2006 11:10:00 PM|W|P| phx kid|W|P|Liza,

I drive a 4-door sedan and I listen to http://www.switchfoot.com/. I don’t even know who Toby Keith is.

Last I checked Bush beat Kerry in ’04 54.9% to 44.4%. Even so Kyl is not in lock step with the president. He actually supports enforcing the border.

I do shop a Wal-Mart. In fact I love the store. I can tell you that I rarely see so many alternatively-abled people and such a broad mix of ethnicities shopping at any other store. Go ahead and attach people who shop at Wal-Mart. You are criticizing one of the broadest cross sections of society. It just shows how much of a prejudiced elitist you are.7/13/2006 01:55:00 PM|W|P| toc001|W|P|You listen to switchfoot.com in your car?

By the way Cook's Political Report changed their assesment of the AZ Senate race from "likely Rep." to "leans Rep."

Sincerely,

Another "elitist" who doesn't support Walmart's use of sweatshops and slave labor.7/13/2006 03:17:00 PM|W|P| 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?7/13/2006 06:20:00 PM|W|P| phx kid|W|P|liza

if you like where the Bush Administration has taken us, vote for Kyl

I am not saying the Bush administration is perfect. No presidency is. It’s just when I compare Kyl, a classic conservative, to Pederson I’ll take Kyl.

I still think the Democrats are the party of higher taxes, weak national defenses, higher regulation, gun-control, abortion-on-demand, failing government schools, slack border enforcement and amnesty for illegals. Nothing Pederson has said changes my view of what his party represents and what he will vote for if in Washington.7/15/2006 12:11:00 AM|W|P| 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.'7/10/2006 05:10:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|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.com7/10/2006 09:47:00 AM|W|P| Mister T in AZ|W|P|Do you think it was Chelsea's idea to go or Bill's? I can't decide.7/10/2006 01:49:00 PM|W|P| 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.7/10/2006 02:36:00 PM|W|P| Tom-AZ|W|P|*sniff*

i miss bill7/10/2006 04:44:00 PM|W|P| 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.7/10/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P| Tom Prezelski|W|P|So, what is your prognostication on the impact of the World Cup on the CD 8 race?

I hear that one of the campaigns is in a panic over that French guy getting red carded.7/10/2006 05:38:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|That "French Guy" is the great Zinédine Zidane. Sheesh.

Avoir du Pois! or something to you...MoFo.7/10/2006 07:28:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Wow Tom, even I know who Zizou is and what a great player he is/was since he is retiring.7/08/2006 08:24:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Those of you that have been watching the World Cup on Univision may have noticed an ad running called "Es Tu Equipo." You can check out the ad here, and a second ad is here. The idea of this ad is to speak to new Hispanic citizens who don't yet necessarily have a party affiliation and tell them a little bit of what the Democratic party is about. In the past, the Republican party has used NFL and NASCAR broadcasts to great effect: "branding" themselves with those sports. The ads are running in nine markets, including Phoenix and Tucson. How successful will it be? I don't know, but I'm glad someone is trying it. The ads are accompanied by a website with a simple "platform" in Spanish and English that resembles the one that Howard Dean trumpeted at his latest appearance in Tucson. Also, you can order jerseys and game balls from the site. The ads are being run by the New Democrat Network, a group run by former Democratic Leadership Council operative Simon Rosenberg. Despite the image held by many progressives that the DLC is this monster machine that manipulates every election, on closer inspection, one would find that they are a heck of a lot more effective getting op-ed pieces written than electing anyone. Rosenberg founded the NDN as a way of building an effective grassroots presence, and quickly ran afoul of leaders in the DLC who didn't think that such a thing was all that important. Rosenberg's final break came when he supported Dean's campaign for the presidency. He now considers himself a "non-denominational progressive," and is interested in helping Democrats of all stripes. The ads are running outside the big media markets (the largest seem to be Denver and Phoenix, and the cities are entirely in the West). Is there a plan to expand the penetration later, or is the strategy to work "under the radar" of our East Coast political media? NB - Interestingly, there is an anti-soccer strain among Republicans. Some of this is driven by xenophobia, and some of it is driven by the belief that football is the true way to train American young men for "manly" pursuits. Rush Limbaugh often goes into rants against it, doing things like accusing the US Women's team of cheating in the 1999 World Cup and pulling out studies on neck injuries from headers. Former NFL great Jack Kemp took to the house floor back in 1986 to speak out against a US bid to host the World Cup:

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.com7/08/2006 08:08:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|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.com7/07/2006 08:04:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Say what you will about Jim Pederson's candidacy, but it has brought out a heretofore unseen brand of populism out in Arizona Republicans. One may remember that last year, Pederson was involved in what turned out to be a minor dispute with the Carpenters Union and Republican Party Chairman Matt Salmon jumped on that one, claiming that Pederson was an anti-union limosine liberal. Salmon made a huge rhetorical boo-boo though, he failed to show a contrast and talk about how supportive the Republican party has been of the labor movement in this state. Oh yeah, they haven't been, that's why. In a television appearance earlier this year, John Munger, an attorney who helps businesses get out of penalties for violating labor and immigration laws, said that he "had a problem" with a wealthy man like Pederson running for the Senate. Now, I look over at Epresso Pundit and Greg Patterson (who loves me despite how badly I treat him) took issue with an interview with Pederson in The Hill. He noted that Pederson took credit for spending $3 million on the Democratic Party's efforts in 2002 and alleges that Pederson and then Attorney General Janet Napolitano arranged for some sort of corrupt fundraising scheme before the campaign. Well, Pederson was the Chairman of the Democratic party. It would have been unusual for someone that was the probable nominee not to meet with Pederson before the campaign started. I can't imagine that Len Munsil or Don Goldwater never met with Salmon before they officially jumped in. The other thing that is interesting is that Patterson seems to take issue with the fact that Democratic Party money combined with Napolitano's money meant that he swamped that poor Matt Salmon, who only was able to spend a paltry $1 million. Interestingly, he fails to add any Republican money that was raised and spent that year. Their post-general election report for that year shows nearly $4 million spent by the State Republican party. If they couldn't win with that, then Patterson and company ought to take issue with how that money got spent. But, when did our state's Republicans start having trouble with how much money gets spent on campaigns? This sudden Ralph Nader pose seems to have coincided with the appearance of Pederson in our political scene. They may also do well to remember that Pederson helped bankroll the Clean Elections initiative, that has reduced the cost of state elections. If they are so concerned about all of this money being spent, they are going to jump right on board with that one, right? I didn't think they would.|W|P|115228663524784854|W|P|They Are For All Those Average Joes Who Pay Estate Taxes and Make Six-Figure Salaries|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/07/2006 08:49:00 AM|W|P| boredinaz|W|P|I clicked on the link to Espresso Pundit and almost fell out of my chair laughing at Patterson's post for today. Check it out. You can almost hear the panicked cries of the far right wing,
"The homos are coming! The homos are coming!"
They must feel so threatened at the thought of uniting bi-national gay couples, they're on the verge of divorce.7/08/2006 02:24:00 AM|W|P| 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.7/09/2006 01:47:00 PM|W|P| boredinaz|W|P|You gotta be freakin' kidding me! Are you really that desperate, eli???

The great thing about this country is that the rich aren't the ruling class. You apparently would prefer to return to the days of aristocracy.

American House of Lords, anyone?7/07/2006 07:14:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|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.com7/07/2006 08:31:00 AM|W|P| 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.7/07/2006 08:43:00 AM|W|P| boredinaz|W|P|Oh tedski,
You give Foghorn way too much credit. I doubt he was thinking at all. He just parroted something someone said to him and doesn't really understand it. "Americanism," after all, has six whole syllables! He can't be asked to ponder the meaning of that. Just saying the word will hurt his head.7/08/2006 02:31:00 AM|W|P| 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?7/24/2006 08:23:00 AM|W|P| Ryan S.|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.7/06/2006 06:24:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|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.com7/06/2006 08:00:00 AM|W|P| sirocco|W|P|From what I have read, her apparent plagarism extends to some of her articles as well as her recent tome.

The software used to help check up on the questioned passages is well-considered, and there seem to be enough disparate instances to show a trend. Hopefully her publisher takes it seriously enough to drop her, which would be a real professional embarassment (assuming Coulter is even capable of embarassment ... nothing to date has indicated hs is).7/06/2006 12:45:00 PM|W|P| 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).7/06/2006 02:15:00 PM|W|P| Art Jacobson|W|P|And here I thought the reference was a rif on "Drinking Liberally."7/06/2006 02:16:00 PM|W|P| Art Jacobson|W|P|And here I thought the reference was a rif on "Drinking Liberally."7/06/2006 07:37:00 PM|W|P| phx kid|W|P|Here you go Tedski. Just what you were waiting for. (I guess they were actually crying wolf so they could get more than needed.)

http://www.azpolicy.org/ff.php?id=3797/08/2006 01:42:00 PM|W|P| jrm|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.7/09/2006 10:24:00 PM|W|P| 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!!!7/10/2006 06:20:00 AM|W|P| 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.7/04/2006 08:16:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.|W|P|115202646072585913|W|P|Because It's Independence Day...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com7/04/2006 05:45:00 PM|W|P| 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 perfect7/05/2006 12:56:00 AM|W|P| Tom-AZ|W|P|The real question is how much has the modern Republican Party become like old England?

Bring me back the party of Ronald Reagan, of Teddy Roosevelt, old President Bush, the 1st. ANYTHING but a rights stealing, defiicit creating, war mongering Bush II.7/06/2006 02:29:00 PM|W|P| Kralmajales|W|P|I used to teach the Declaration in intro. American Government classes. It was surprising how many college students had never read it, let alone dissected and thought about it. One of my professors from college used to call it "America's Statement to the World on Human Rights."

Unfortunately, I fear that few around the world believe us much anymore.7/03/2006 07:34:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|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.com7/03/2006 08:40:00 AM|W|P| phx kid|W|P|You scared me for a second. I thought maybe Tom Patterson had left the Goldwater Institute.7/03/2006 06:36:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|We may be witnessing a watershed election in Southern Arizona. What is that? For the first time in twenty four years we will have an all Democratic delegation? Will Lena Seradnik be the first Democrat elected out of the Northwest side since Reed Ewing? Will our local papers actually cover the election? 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.com7/03/2006 07:48:00 AM|W|P| phx kid|W|P|Tedski,

What would give Lena Saradnik the slightest chance of winning in LD 26?7/06/2006 11:30:00 AM|W|P| Michael|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.7/07/2006 07:53:00 PM|W|P| Squib aka TwistedOreo|W|P|In 2002 I attended a Congressional debate where Sweeney and several others were speaking. He was asked about how to "solve" the illegal immigration problem...his answer, catch them, tattoo their foreheads and send them back across the border. The publisher of our local newspaper leaned over and asked us if he really said that and what the tatto should say...after a brief discussion, it was decided.."I crossed the border illegally and all I got was this lousy tattoo."
Needless to say, this guy is a nutjob.