On the above date and time, I discovered a truck full of film equipment, a film crew and a group of Hispanic men in the east parking lot of Freestone Park. I asked the director and camera operator if they had a permit. The gentlemen said, "We are with the Mayor of the Town of Gilbert, he is on his way." At any rate, the gentlemen did not have a permit and when asked, did not know the name of Mayor Steve Berman. I then asked the gentlemen what was the name of their organization. The director said "I don't know, we are all with separate companies." I asked the gentlemen not to unload anything until the Mayor got there. I then met Bill Montgomery, who had arrived as I was speaking with the film crew. Mr. Montgomery informed me that he was the Republican candidate for Attorney General and that the crew was there to film a commercial for him. Mayor Steve Berman arrived at 0910. Meanwhile, the camera operator informed me that the commercial is about illegal immigration, the groups of Hispanic men are illegal immigrants and that they were being paid for their services. Also, a Town of Gilbert Police car was brought to the scene as a prop to make it appear that illegal immigrants were being arrested. Mayor Berman left the scene approximately between 0930 and 1000. Due to their being tied-up filming the commercial, I was unable to get the names of the director and camera operator.

Meanwhile, the camera operator informed me that the commercial is about illegal immigration, the groups of Hispanic men are illegal immigrants and that they were being paid for their services.

9/22/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P| Brilliant and Embittered|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.10/19/2006 12:55:00 AM|W|P| Obstructionist|W|P|Given the Polygamy issue and Child Brides in Arizona over the past 6 decades, I would rather put my faith in a New Broom that Sweeps Clean!

As the FOR KIDS SAKE Rep. Napolitano & Goddard are known quanities, that have both been near useless. If I have to deal with Goddard for another 4 years I will scream and with it release dozens of recorded phone conversations, hundreds of emails. ITS TIME FOR A CHANGE! Polygamy will only become a bigger story, is it the legacy Arizonian's want as an image for their state?9/22/2006 09:44:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A picture taken at the "Clinton Global Initiative" Conference. Have at it... |W|P|115894360995033188|W|P|R-Cubed's First Caption Contest|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/22/2006 10:29:00 PM|W|P| Rex Scott|W|P|How about...

"Hey, folks! You'll NEVER guess where George and Hillary are right now!"9/22/2006 07:30:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Arizona Daily Star gave a thorn to the Democratic Party for revealing the link to Randy Graf on David Duke's website. They have a point that any bozo can link to a website, and that doesn't necessarily mean that any support is reciprocated. But, take a look at David Duke's website again. The only candidate featured is Randy Graf. Now, ask yourself what I asked on here yesterday, what is it about Graf that gets Duke so excited? It isn't because Graf is a Republican, since Duke doesn't have nice things to say about George Bush. Could it have anything to do with things like Graf's opposition to the cross burning bill two years ago? Or Graf's continuing association with racists within the anti-immigration movement? No, I'm sure it's just because Duke is an avid golfer or something. NB - Graf's site carries a press release called "Graf Recieves Wide Support From National GOP." How is that going?|W|P|115893635637567333|W|P|Is That a Thorn, or a Prick?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/22/2006 08:54:00 AM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|I dunno Chris, probably for the same reason you keep posting the same comment on here over and over again.9/22/2006 01:43:00 PM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|I read the THORN language in the Star and find myself in fundamental agreement regarding the link itself and what it might mean. Websites have as much control over who links to them as we have control over what we get in the mail each day.

There probably is a rock to turn over here. Tedski gave it a little nudge. I'm not touching the thing, at least not yet.9/22/2006 07:09:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Terry Goddard scored a victory in court yesterday against Western Union, who attempted to block Goddard's investigations into money transfers by coyotes. Goddard has an ongoing operation to investigate both smuggling and the crimes that coyotes commit against the migrants that they smuggle. Because of the large ammounts of money that coyotes and the people that hire them transfer using services like Western Union, they leave footprints that law enforcement can use in its investigations. Such a tool can also be used to investigate terrorism. The program is being done under the auspices of a court and is carefully stuctured so as not to inconvienience legitimate users of Western Union. However, Western Union decided to challenge the program on privacy grounds. This would have been easier to buy had they not already been sharing data with consumer credit and marketing agencies. The fact is that millions of dollars pass through services like Western Union from sumuggling operations. With every transaction, they make a cut. If smugglers know that they are being watched, Western Union loses business. So, their profits are more important than finding the people that exploit and commit crimes against migrants. With this sort of stand against border and homeland security, does Western Union still advertise on Lou Dobbs? Do people on their board give to "tough on immigration" Republicans?|W|P|115893539784904536|W|P|Goddard Scores Victory Over Western Union|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/21/2006 03:58:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|According the word out here in Blogistan, the NRCC has pulled its ads in CD 8. I'll try to do a bit more to run this one down. Apparently, all the ads have been cancelled except for the ones on KVOA because its too late to cancel those. The only downside is that this means they have more money to spend on J. D. Hayworth.|W|P|115887963603860218|W|P|¿El NRCC Dice “No Mas”?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/21/2006 07:03:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|They have bigger problems right now in Arizona:

For example in the following poll:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=7bc891cf-4d78-4a76-981e-f7769f103f36

it indicates that 23% of Republicans in Arizona plan to vote for the Governor. Since it would take another 23% of the GOP voters to cancel them out, the effect of that particular number is that Munsil in effect might as well have almost half of his base sitting at home on election day.

The poll also shows Pederson within five.

The crosstabs on that poll do look a little odd to me though-- in both the Senate and Governor's races they show the Democrat doing better in metropolitan Phoenix than in Tucson, in fact in the Senate race they show Pederson up two in metropolitan Phoenix with Kyl up sixteen in Tucson. Sounds like some sampling error to me.9/21/2006 12:19:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Arizona Daily Star ran a piece this morning on David Duke's endorsement of Randy Graf and the fact that he featured a link to Graf on his website. Of course, this led to protests by Republicans that just because Duke likes Graf doesn't make Graf a racist. True 'dat, but I'd like to know what it is exactly that they think it is about Graf that is so appealing to a self-proclaimed "white nationalist" like Duke. The other thing that has been fun is reading the tortuous arguments in the Star's comment section attempting to link Gabrielle Giffords to college Hispanic organization MEChA. I'm not sure what these people think goes on at most campus MEChA meetings (most chapters are not nearly as radical as their national website would have you believe), or if they've even set foot on a college campus for that matter. Let's assume that MEChA is the hotbed of Xicano (yes, with an "x," makes it more radical) revolution that they say it is. It is hard to imagine Giffords shouting "Viva la Raza" and ditching her "colonized" name for Xocoyotl. Despite the protestations of Graf's campaign, he has had connections to the dirty underside of the anti-immigrant movement. Yes, there are plenty of level headed non-racist people (including Hispanics in my own family) who have some serious problems with illegal immigration and policies that they believe encourage it. However, Graf has refused to dissavow some disturbing relationships he has had with racists within the anti-immigration community. The most distubing one is with the perenial anti-immigrant activist John Tanton, who has been renowned for his anti-Hispanic and anti-Catholic rants. His racism led to mainstream leaders such as Walter Cronkite and Linda Chavez to disassociate themselves from his group FAIR years ago. FAIR contributed to the Graf supported PAN committee in 2004, and they have also raised funds for Graf's current campaign. Graf served as a "senior advisor" to the PAN committee and one of his fellow advisors was Dr. Virginia Abernethy, who you may remember got into hot water when she proclaimed that she was not a "white supremacist" but only a "white separatist," as if that made it better. Protests abounded when her appointment was revealed, even FAIR condemned it. No word from Graf at the time or since as near as I can tell. Graf's campaign also seems to have had connections to local racist hot heads like professional candidate Joe Sweeney, who posted numerous "Democrats and Independents for Graf" signs back in 2004, and flag burner Roy Warden. With "traditional Democrat" Bill Johnson out of the race, Russ Dove (a former "border correspondent" for Graf's old campaign manager Steve Aiken) will no doubt be rearing his head soon at Graf's events. Graf's campaign manager can deride people as "racist crazies" all he wants, but until Graf personally and unequivocally distances himself from these people, those of us on this side of politics will continue to question him about it.|W|P|115886733760827450|W|P|Early Salvos in the CD 8 Race|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/21/2006 08:31:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Rumor Mill had it that Ted Downing was talking up a run against Supervisor Richard Elías in the next election. The rumor went that Downing was angry that Elías supported Paula Aboud against him for the State Senate. Juicy enough rumor, 'cept for one tiny problem. Downing lives in Supervisor District 3, which is represented by Sharon Bronson. Say, who did Bronson support in that race?|W|P|115885414279168349|W|P|Because It's Never Too Early: Putting the First '08 Rumor to Rest|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/20/2006 12:17:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research has released a poll showing Gabrielle Giffords at 52%, Randy Graf at 35% with Independent Jay Quick and Libertarian Dave Nolan each getting 5%. Giffords is also at 78% name id, and has a 51% approval rating and a 18% disapproval rating. Graf, on the other hand, is better known at 82%, but disapproved by 39% of district voters, with only a 32% approval rating. Such ratings for Graf are by no means insurmountable, but it means that he starts with an electorate a little less likely to hear him out. Of course, we shouldn't rest on our laurels. What I've seen of Giffords's campaign over the last week doesn't show they are. But, guldernit, this is nice.|W|P|115878065980736948|W|P|Ah, the First CD 8 Poll of the Season|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/20/2006 03:15:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Geez, Kid, when did you start using George Tuttle's definition of "push poll" meaning, "poll with results I don't like"?

They are a Democratic firm, but their business would dry up darned quick if they made a habit of reporting bad data, 'specially since campaigns depend on it for devising strategy.9/20/2006 03:39:00 PM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|PK,

Invite you to consider that the Giffords campaign is playing for keeps and taking nothing for granted. A poll could come out showing every creature with feet voting for Giffords, and they will still run ads, still walk neighborhoods, still mail mailings, and not rest until 11/8.

Not only will they not let up, they will probably raise the bar.

60%?9/20/2006 08:37:00 PM|W|P| Framer|W|P|You could also apply the Roger hypothosis that it is better not to publish your own best case poll numbers (as these most likely are) when it is possible or even probable that the numbers will shrink, giving Graf the appearence of closing, even if it is just the numbers evening out.

Grafs next 15% would be a lot easier to grab than Gabby's next 5%.

Were I running Gabby's campaign I might have kept those numbers close until i saw how they compared to another third party poll, especially if she thought her lead was actually that high.

However, leaking to bloggers is always OK.9/21/2006 07:20:00 AM|W|P| Framer|W|P|I'm starting to believe that releasing this poll was Gabby's first big mistake.

If the margin is wide enough to cut funding for Graf, it will also effect Gabby's fundraising if contributers think the race is well in hand. Graf can run effectively with less. I'm not sure Gabby can.

I was able to see the methodology of the Star poll, the methodology of this poll was omitted. I would believe that the real number is far closer to the Star totals at this point for that reason alone.

If that is the case, Graf has already made up almost 10 points since last week according to Gabby's poll. You think that might bring in some dollars to Graf if reported that way?

It was a mistake for Patty to release her selected poll information and it will probably prove to be so for Gabby as well.9/21/2006 09:54:00 AM|W|P| union guy|W|P|Phx Kid,

I agree that immigration is the issue in this election. That's why Gabby will win handily. Poll after poll shows that Arizonans want practical solutions that are fair to taxpayers, not the build a fence only plan where the government would spend billions of dollars NOT addressing the 12 million people already here. Voters know that the issue is complex and requires real solutions and they know that the build a fence only crowd doesn't have solutions.

Want proof? Goldwater lost. Graf got fewer votes in the 2006 primary than he did in 2004. And those were Republican primaries.

I hope immigration is THE issue in this election. Then the voters can show how out of touch Graf, Goldwater, Hayworth, and Kyl are on this issue.9/21/2006 11:51:00 AM|W|P| Michael|W|P|Slighty off topic, but I just want to say that I think we're fortunate to have this much polling being made publicly available. Seems unusual in a Congressional race to have so many polls being conducted and publicized. I don't remember there being so many polls in the district in 2004 or in other districts in which I've lived around the country prior to that. Probably because it's such a tight and high-profile race, but it's still nice to get these periodic snapshots of the electorate.9/20/2006 06:45:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Jim Nintzel of the Tucson Weekly called me yesterday to tell me that my numbers were based on early incomplete numbers, and that complete results are now posted. Nintzel loves to find my mistakes. I still like to remind him that he confused me and my brother in "The Skinny" once. This wouldn't have been so bad, 'cept they were making fun of Kathleen Dunbar confusing the two of us. As far as primary turn out goes, out of the twelve major party primaries that were contested in both 2004 and 2006, there were only three where there was an increase in turnout. Those were the Democratic primary in CD 5, where there was no contest, and both major party primaries in CD 8. Back in 2004, CD 5 Democratic candidates Ron Maynard and R-Cubed reader Elizabeth Rogers split 16,347 votes. In this primary, Harry Mitchell recieved 20,837 votes for an increase of 27.5% despite the fact that he had no opponent. On the Republican side, turnout dropped from 54,462 votes to 38,271, a 29.7% decrease. I was wrong about CD 8, there was a slight uptick on the Republican side. 62,725 voters chose between Randy Graf and Jim Kolbe in 2004, and 64,076 voted in this primary, a slight increase of 2.2%. The Democratic increase remains impressive, from 34,486 to 61,409, a 78.1% increase. So many people voted in the CD 8 primary that even silver medalist Patty Weiss managed to get nearly as many votes as CD 1 winner Ellen Simon and got more than every candidate except the unopposed Harry Mitchell and Raúl Grijalva. What's the lesson here? Well...first lesson for me is to check my math. Twice even.|W|P|115876150382793941|W|P|Darnit, the Facts Get In the Way of a Good Post|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/19/2006 08:20:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, check this out, these are Randy Graf's vote totals: 2004 - 26,686 2006 - 23,949 So wait, Randy Graf got fewer votes, even though he did not have to run against an incumbent? Well, his percentage didn't change, in fact, it went up slightly (well, one tenth of a percent). But what did go down were the number of people who voted in the Repubican primary. This happened despite the growth in the area over the past few years. 62,725 people voted in the Republican primary in 2004, but only 55,405 people voted in the Republican primary this year. This is a drop of 11%. Contrast this with the Democratic primary, where there was a 55% increase, with 34,486 voters in 2004 and 53,790 in 2006. So, why the drop? Were people turned off by the negativity of the campaign? Did the lack of strong choices in the Governor's race make it difficult to bring voters out? The Democratic campaign was also hard fought, and no Governor's race existed to bring folks out but, for some reason, there was a large increase. Whatever the reasons, I don't think it says a lot about the enthusiasm of Republican voters for either their congressional or gubernatorial candidates. NB - I didn't feel like checking every district, but I checked CD 7. The numbers were also down in the Republican primary and up in the Democratic primary. CORRECTION - It seems my numbers were based on incomplete results; complete results are now posted. There was a slightly larger showing in this Republican primary after all, and Graf's numbers were up slightly.|W|P|115868015633935667|W|P|CD 8 Number Crunching|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/19/2006 11:00:00 AM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|phx kid:

As I commented on another of Ted's posts, it appears that the crowd who supported Graf two years ago, still support Graf. But he has not shown any indication that he has gained any new support, and without it, I doubt if he can win.9/19/2006 06:41:00 PM|W|P| GOPinsider|W|P|Many of those 20,000 Republicans in the district will vote for Gabby.

The attacks on her by her primary opponents and public recognition of the fact that she was a Republican until 1999 is to her benefit because it means that many moderate and female Republicans will choose to support her rather than Graf who is extreme evem for the Republican party.9/19/2006 09:15:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Phx Kid, you can dream right?9/20/2006 05:33:00 AM|W|P| Rex Scott|W|P|Even though I have been a fervent Giffords backer since the start, it would be utter folly for any of us in her camp to doubt that WE start the general election campaign as the underdogs. The dynamic changed abruptly when the race shifted into general election mode. Graf just got back from DC with the blessing of Hastert and Co., this is still a GOP district and they will do all they have to do to hold this seat.

By the way, did anyone notice that Kolbe said last week that he would not endorse Graf "AT THIS TIME?" Did anyone also notice that Graf said he still hoped to meet and speak with Kolbe? Don't bet your paycheck that Kolbe will stay on the sidelines. There will be great pressure on him to be a good soldier, although I am inclined to agree that Graf is not hurt too badly if Kolbe never backs him.

GOPInsider (who, if memory serves, was a Huffman backer during the primary) is correct that Republican women and the dwindling herd of GOP moderates will be targets for the Giffords effort. Both campaigns will also go after independents and all voters in the border counties. I make the latter point because Giffords can't merely split Pima with Graf (as Huffman did) because the votes along the border may well go to Graf.

Democrats are indeed fortunate that their nominee is bright, experienced, blessed with tons of resources and has a savvy ad strategy. It's no wonder that Giffords' first general election ad is on the topic of national security. She knows that voters have to trust Democrats to keep us safe and she is making the accurate point that Republican policies HAVE MADE THIS COUNTRY LESS SAFE.

The decision made by Democrats to nominate Giffords looks smarter every day. But, she is going to have to come from behind to win. This district has been in GOP hands for 22 years, their base is fired up after the conservative coup during the primary, they have the immigration and gay marriage hot buttons to push and they will funnel an incessant flow of money into CD8. We can also expect that the GOP smear machine will soon turn its attention Gabby's way.9/21/2006 07:14:00 AM|W|P| GOPinsider|W|P|Rex is correct in his memory that I was a Huffman supporter in the primary. However, I can say that I and many other registered Republicans who have been longtime Kolbe supporters in the district, will not vote for Graf as he does not represent our beliefs.

Many of us will vote for Gabby, just like many of us voted for Gov. Napolitano in 2002 and will do so again this year.9/19/2006 06:50:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of the things that is always hard to explain to many of my friends is why I and many other liberals still practice Catholicism. I usually give the glib answer that Roman Catholicism is like baseball. Millions and millions of fans still attend the games and follow every statistic obsessively even though the owners and even the players treat them horribly. A baseball fan will tell you that the game is still beautiful and they try not to get distracted by the men running the sport. It's not really that simple. There are plenty of things in the church to tick off both liberals and conservatives. A liberal gets mad about the anti-abortion stance, where a conservative gets mad about the anti-death penalty stance. A liberal smirks a little when the Pope lectures George Bush about the Iraq war, where the conservative admires that same Pope wagging his finger at churchmen who practice liberation theology. One of the things that I took comfort in during the last Papacy was the way that Pope John Paul II reached out to people of other faiths. This sort of ecumenism make the skin of some conservatives crawl (Pat Buchanan and his ilk still complain about the Pope kissing the Qu'ran), but it gave some of us a lot of hope for peace in the world. It looks like with one speech, Pope Benedict XVI has turned his back on all of that. Not even one speech, but one paragraph in one speech. I went back and read the speech, hoping to see something like "This ignorant guy Manuel Paleologus, who spent his youth as a prisoner of the Turks and whose Empire was about to be swallowed up by an Islamic army so his opinions about Muslims should be taken with a grain of salt, said..." but nothing. In fact, the paragraph seemed to be out of place in a speech about the relationship of faith and reason. Why he would choose now to say such a thing is beyond me, except as a signal to the less tollerant wings of the Church. Some of us also wonder about some less noticed signals, such as the recent departure of Fr. George Coyne from the Vatican Observatory. Coyne had been very vocal in his support for evolution, where as Benedict has been pushing for "intelligent design." It would suprise some that the church had in recent decades not taken a hard and fast position on the issue. Benedict himself had writings on the subject back when he was still Joseph Ratzinger that seemed to accept evolution, but wanted to make it clear that scientific theories should not crowd God out. (One friend of mine witnessed an argument between a fundamentalist student and Coyne after a class. Apparently, the fundamentalist didn't realize that Coyne was a priest and knew the Bible as well as he did.) Coyne is a Jesuit, an order that believes that studying the universe is a way of understanding God. Benedict and some conservatives seem to want to turn their back on this kind of thinking and go back to an earlier time. Given that the last Pope, probably recalling his countryman Nicolaus Copernicus, gave a belated but none-the-less necessary pardon of Galileo Galilei, it makes me wonder how far back he wishes to turn the calendar.|W|P|115867673452955303|W|P|Turning Away from John Paul II's Legacy?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/19/2006 04:43:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Benedict has to overcome his past though. A lot of non-Catholics (especially Jews) were suspicious of him because of his one time service in the Wehrmacht.

The way he could overcome it would be to aggressively promote tolerance, as John Paul did. By the same token, when he makes a statement that could be perceived as intolerant, it is magnified because of the suspicions that already existed.

It's a little like Mel Gibson. If his recent anti-Semitic remarks had come out of the blue then they probably would have been written off as the ravings of a drunk. But given the suspicions that already existed due to his father and some past episodes, the remarks were magnified into a major scandal.

A better example to follow might be to look at Sen. Byrd of West Virgnia. He was a former member of the Klan but has aggressively fought for civil rights, worked to write legislation to that effect, and hired a lot of Black staffers. Plus, he has expressly renounced the Klan and said that what he did was wrong and that he regrets having done it.9/18/2006 07:37:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Robert Novak comments on The Daily Show Jon Stewart:

[S]omebody mentioned the Jon Stewart program, I’ve never seen that in my life and I will go to my grave never having seen it...I don’t see any reason for it. It’s a comedian, self-righteous comedian taking on airs of grandeur and I really don’t need that.

|W|P|115859046899871706|W|P|He's the Lord of Darkness and Prince of Irony!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/18/2006 10:10:00 AM|W|P| Michael|W|P|Novakula better be careful living in that glass house of his when he's throws all those stones around...9/18/2006 01:13:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|No...we need the true visage to capture the horror.

It may be uncomfortable, but I feel it is my duty.9/18/2006 08:18:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Can you maybe draw something funny on his head? Like a pair of fluffy bunny ears?9/16/2006 05:59:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The folks over at Sonoran Alliance are convinced that Janet Napolitano is going to get spanked in this election. I realize that as partisan activists, they have to convince themselves of this despite all evidence to the contrary. They do have some numbers to back up their hypothesis, their argument goes beyond the "everyone that goes to the meetings I do and that think the way I do hates this person as much as I do" habit that activists on both sides fall into. They have some decent reasons to back this up, but I don't think they are thinking about the whole story here. One thing that they look at is registration numbers. They point to Republicans having 1,003,977 registered voters, whereas the Democrats have 847,490 registered voters. This means that Republicans have increased their margin by 24,737 votes, which dwarfs Napolitano's 2002 winning margin of 11,819. Okay, except that it neglects to account for the 175,529 voters that have registered in other parties, or none at all, since the 2002 election. That's seven times larger than the increase for the Republicans. Do those go to Len Munsil, or to Napolitano? Merely looking at the registration totals doesn't tell you that. Plus, Napolitano demonstrated an ability to attract Republican votes before, and there is nothing to indicate that she has lost that ability. Purely by voter registration totals, yes, a Republican should win every time. By that token, Tucson should have a Democratic mayor too. This assumes that every Republican agrees with Len Munsil enough to support him. I'm not sure that's the case. For example, the PMA, Munsil's big issue before he got in the governor's race, looks to be losing by margins big enough that tell me that many Republicans aren't even supporting this important part of his agenda. They also consider that in 2002, there were ideological differences between the primary candidates, and this may have impared Matt Salmon's ability to hold Republican voters together for the general election. Even with some of the goofiness that went on in this primary, this was not really a "factional" primary. There wasn't a candidate energizing moderates that now would be looking at a Democratic alternative. Good point, except one may remember that the moderate was supposed to be John Greene. One of Greene's stated reasons for getting out of the race was because he found that many moderate Republicans in the buisiness community were already supporting Napolitano. Just because they didn't have a candidate in the primary, doesn't necessarilly mean moderates will not be looking seriously at a Democrat in the general election. But, keep wishing, fellas.|W|P|115845666839246129|W|P|Republicans Thinking Wishfully|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/17/2006 07:46:00 AM|W|P| Rex Scott|W|P|Munsil is very articulate, extremely bright and stays on message with great discipline. He will be Janet's equal in a debate. Janet has also been a "triangulator" on taxes, the border and vouchers. In a way, she had to be because of her precarious position as a governor dealing with GOP majorities in both houses of the Legislature, but that can come across in other, less flattering ways in a debate with someone who sticks to his own playbook with rigidity.

I like that Janet has played up the fact that Munsil's experience lies mostly in being an advocate for an ideologically-based organization. People in both parties will ask themselves how Len Munsil can relate to and represent those who differ with him when he has been such a strident partisan for years. His lack of elected experience is NOT a factor, but it is relevant to ask how someone who has been a right-wing cheerleader for years can be the voice for all Arizonans.

Munsil benefits (as I have said in other contexts) from having a unified base that is excited about having him, Kyl and Graf heading the ticket in Southern Arizona, which could cut into traditional Democratic support, especially in border counties, but also in LD26 if Melvin and Jorgenson help to keep that conservative base excited and organized.

I certainly do hope Janet continues to run well in Maricopa County and that the turnout in Hispanic areas increases because she can not count on the large number of votes that came out of the Indian reservations four years ago when the gaming initiative was on the ballot. It would behoove Janet to continue to depict Munsil as extreme, but she should also talk a lot about what a Governor Munsil might do working with a Legislature that will still be contolled by the GOP. Thank back over the last four years about what would have been enacted rather than avoided if we had elected "Governor Salmon!" I shudder to consider that gloomy scenario and keeping both the past and the future in the mind of the voter will inevitably help Janet to run well in areas where the GOP is fractured, turn out minority voters and keep her own Democratic base pumped up and ready to do battle.

She will win, but we ought not think it will be easy or pretty.9/18/2006 06:48:00 PM|W|P| Adam Selene|W|P|Ted, I understand that Flagstaff Mayor Joe Donaldson, a Repub who supported shrub and Renzi twice, has endorsed Janet.

He's part of a small but significant group of moderate Repubs who were sickened by all the Repubs trying to out bigot one another during the primary.9/18/2006 10:25:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|I've always thought also that the system in Arizona was stacked heavily in favor of incumbents.

Examples include the 'two-to-a-district' representatives, which favors people who have been there and can run as a team, while not necessarily giving a challenger a fixed target, and the very late date of the primary. This last one is a real handicap to challengers, for example giving a candidate like Munsil only eight weeks (already down to seven) to hone in on the incumbent.

This usually works in favor of Republicans but in this case (as in the case of the Attorney General's race) it works in favor of the Democrats.

If I could write the law, I'd split all the legislative districts in half (giving legislators a smaller and more compact constituency) and would move the primary up at least a month.9/18/2006 10:31:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|I might also add, anecdotally but probably as an accurate reflection of what is going on elsewhere, I've met a number of people- Democrats, Republicans and Independents who supported Salmon (or Mahoney, or didn't vote) in 2002 but who now believe that the Governor has done a good enough job that they plan to vote for her this time. And that's another flaw in these guys thinking-- believing that everyone who voted for Salmon last time will vote for Munsil this time. That just isn't so-- and I strongly suspect that the number moving from Salmon to Napolitano is far larger than the number of any former Napolitano voters who plan to go the other way.9/16/2006 03:43:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I recieved an e-mail from Douglas Johnson, Vice-President of National Demographics Corporation, detailing some reasons the polling in the gubernatorial primary did not resemble the final results:

Here's the answer to the question you pose about why CD 8 surveys were so accurate when the poll about Pima views on the Gov primary were so far off: CD 8 surveys included from 400 to 700 respondents in CD 8, giving them minimal margins of error. In contrast, the Behavior Research Center talked to 627 voters STATEWIDE, and only 251 of them were Republicans.The report does not give the details by county, but odds are that less than 40 of those respondents were Pima County Republicans. With 40 or fewer respondents, the margin of error for Pima County Republican views on the primary is insanely high, at least plus or minus 15 percent. The temptation to announce survey subtotals is always strong, but often it's a mistake because the subsample size is simply too small to conclude anything from its results.

|W|P|115844697542215113|W|P|An Answer?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/17/2006 12:14:00 AM|W|P| Michael|W|P|It always come back the sample, doesn't it?

I guess size really DOES matter...9/15/2006 07:47:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Quick question for all y'all: the polling in the CD 8 race seemed to be spot on. However, in the Republican race for governor, the polling was way off. Don Goldwater was supposed to have a 2-1 lead against Len Munsil. His Pima County number was negligible in one survey, but his final number down here was a shade over 40%. So, why were the polls generally accurate in the CD 8 race, but so far off in the governor's race?|W|P|115837607202471688|W|P|The Question (Not a Moody Blues Song)|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/15/2006 07:08:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Before he was a lobbyist and activist advocating for strengthening the institution of marriage, Len Munsil was a divorce attorney. Well, so says a site called Len Munsil Facts that has just gone up in the last week or so. It turns out that Munsil merely worked for a law firm that handled divorce law, but he personally could have not handled divorces at all. He could have worked the firm's other specialty: personal injury. I take it we won't see any standard issue Republican talking points railing against "trial lawyers" and for tort reform over the next two months. The site is interesting. It includes tidbits from his career as the arch-conservative editor of the State Press, where he questioned the sanity of opponents of South African apartheid. In the mid-eighties, defending apartheid was a cause célèbre among campus conservatives. By the time I had gotten to the U of A, they had moved on to complaining about the Martin Luther King Jr. holliday. Neither of these had anything to do with race, I'm sure. One question among some of us is, who the heck is funding the site? The site is paid for by the Arizona Conservative Trust. I guess this would imply that it is a Republican group. However, no one seems to have seen this site before the primary. The last filing shows no activity, but lists a Debra Dennis as chairman and a Thomas Kennedy as treasurer. The "paid for by" statement declares that funding also came from another group called the Arizona Values Coalition. This group registered on September 5th, after the last filing period. The two officers listed have the improbable names Beau Memory and Seamus Perry. Without a little mystery, what fun is life?|W|P|115837475361744097|W|P|I'm Still Mad I Don't Get to Post that Picture of Don del Oro Anymore|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/15/2006 07:03:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I saw Steve Huffman today. I told him, "At least you did better than me..." His Blackberry was going constantly. He must have some other irons in the fire. I actually don't know if he knew it was me. He knows my brother well, but I don't think I have seem him in person since way back before he first got elected.|W|P|115837248105614154|W|P|The Huff|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/15/2006 08:39:00 PM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|We have the conciliatory webpage remarks of:

Francine
Patty
Antoneri

and then there is

Stevie9/15/2006 07:32:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Jon Kyl campaign made a big deal out of the endorsement of Luis González a few weeks back. Now, the Arizona Diamondbacks might cut him at the end of the season. I have a strong suspicion that the two events are not related, as much fun as it would be to allege that we Democrats have goons that can exact revenge on anyone not voting our way. Don't mess with us, man! Oh well. Interestingly, González told Jim Pederson earlier in the year that he would be voting for him. Pederson should have known from his years in real estate to get everything in writing. I thought it was funny that the Kyl campaign, who have been constantly complaining about Pederson's wealth, would brag about support from a guy that will make $10.6 million this year. I was waiting for the Republicans to claim that González's support was indicative that Hispanics are ready to turn, en masse, to the Republican party. Of course, González is a Cuban-American, and in his birth state of Florida, Cubanos have been voting Republican for decades. We hear that Hispanics are about to Republican every two years. You know, I haven't heard any of this talk over the last couple of months, why is that? So, he endorsed Kyl, but it doesn't appear he'll have a chance to actually vote for him. Oh well. I just want to know what Gonzo's dad, Mr. An, is doing this election.|W|P|115833204608365619|W|P|Kyl Voter May Have to Leave State|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/15/2006 06:00:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The old axiom in legislative politics is that if it is in another constituency, it is "waste" or "pork," while in your own it is called "investment." Jon Kyl is running an ad now that says that it is pork no matter where it is. I suppose this would be admirable, 'cept he doesn't always live by these words himself. First of all, let's talk about "pork." One of the things I have always found ironic is that although Arizona has for the last few decades been considered a conservative state, we have been dependent on largesse from some far off government since the first time the Spaniards built their presidios and missions. I talked to a guy from Raúl Grijalva's DC office around the time that Randy "Duke" Cunningham's scandal broke. He told me that some members use the so called "earmarks" (Yes, a word derived from hog farming) to fund ongoing local projects or new projects where there is a broad local consensus. The other kind, the kind that gives earmarks a bad name, is where a congressman will fund a project with little or no need. This is where such things as Cunningham's actions purchasing substandard equipment that the Army didn't want, and the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" come in. I think anyone can see where fighting the latter is something that is necessary. The difference would have been highlighted if Kyl had just used the unedited quote from Jim Pederson:

Bring the bacon home, they call that pork, but when you’re talking about highway spending, when you’re talking about university research grants, or you’re talking about certain critical services to our people. Many projects are going underfunded in this state because our Congressional delegation is not working to get that money to Arizona.

The fact is, we are paying federal taxes here too. Why not fight to make sure that where possible, money from Arizona taxpayers is spent here? Kyl's protestations that Pederson's policies will run up huge tax bills and deficits would be easier to take if, in fact, Kyl was fighting higher deficits and waste in other areas. For example, in the last three years, he voted three times to increase the debt celing, and he also voted against "pay-as-you-go" rules that would have helped keep the deficit down. When he had a chance to vote to end the no-bid contracting in Iraq, which has led to waste and poor service for our troops as well as money that just can't be accounted for, he voted against it. He even voted against investigating it at all. So, when it is in Baghdad, Arizona it's "pork," what is it when it is in Baghdad, Iraq? Kyl is against "pork" in Arizona, but doesn't seem to have trouble fighting for it in other areas. One particularly infamous bill was S 1637, called the JOBS Act. This bill started as a repeal of an export subsidy and replace it with incentives to help US companies. The bill quickly became a legislative bacchanal, and $170 billion in tax breaks were sutured to the bill. Kyl added a $92 million tax break for of all things, NASCAR. NASCAR's last television deal was for $2.4 billion, and the brothers that control the operation have a net worth topping $1 billion, but Kyl thinks they need a tax break more than Arizonans need money for our roads. Maybe if we would all wear sponsor logos and turn left a bit more... I suppose that Kyl's definition of "pork" is money not requested by the right lobbyists.|W|P|115832835121668671|W|P|The Other White Meat|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/15/2006 10:06:00 AM|W|P| Michael|W|P|Ah, that's the stuff.

The politicians who decry "pork" - even that spending which enjoys a large consensus - are the very same politicians who would like to see government shrunk to the size that it could be drowned in a bathtub.

Earmarks are not inherently bad. In fact, they do a lot of good for organizations and local governments who can't find funding elsewhere in this godawful Bush economy.

You know, without federal highway dollars, I-10 would be a lot more treacherous to navigate. Maybe all this anti-pork talk is a veiled attempt to keep the more level-headed legislators from outside Maricopa County from being able to make it to the legislature...9/14/2006 06:26:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|What's this I'm hearing that former long time Democratic leader Art Hamilton is endorsing current Republican Speaker Jim Weiers for re-election? At first I wondered if this had something to do with his current career as a lobbyist. Weiers will be running for speaker against Andy Biggs. Weiers would be better for his business than Biggs. However, the speculation I'm hearing now is that it has to do with a school board race. Apparently, the Arizona Education Association endorsed a candidate against a candidate that Hamilton was supporting. Because of this, the story goes, Hamilton is endorsing Weiers over Democrat Jackie Thrasher, a long-shot but good candidate supported by the AEA. Hamilton's career as both a politician and activist served as an example for me when I was a young activist. This is a guy who in his early 20's personally went toe-to-toe with William Rehnquist when the man was trying to intimidate black and hispanic voters. His actions in opposition to Evan Mecham gave those of us out here a sense that our state could produce leadership that we could be proud of. His words often carried a wisdom and moral force; I always felt honored to get a word of advice from the man. Hamilton was also someone who encouraged and helped younger legislators in the Democratic caucus. It's tragic that he would turn his back on this admirable record to, in essence, endorse all of the stupidity that the legislature has tried to force on the state over the last few years.|W|P|115824249035623988|W|P|Art Hamilton: Off of My List|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/15/2006 06:07:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Art Hamilton not only went to my high school, he also was the first politician I ever saw in person.

Hmmmm9/14/2006 05:54:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, one of the things I knew about my loss was that some of the folks that post on here would try to bludgeon me with it. Even before I lost, one local blogger, who apparently hates me for being a friend of Gabrielle Giffords, took a potshot at me for being a lazy campaigner. It would have been easier to buy this if I hadn't read it after coming home from walking a neighborhood. It also would have been easier to buy if it hadn't come from a person whose political activism seems to consist only of poorly spelled invective hurled at Giffords and Patty Weiss. Yesterday, I got a sweet little note from former State Representative Mark Thompson:

Hey Tedski, A whopping 10.6%... WOW; congrats! Can you say “Karma”?

There were all sorts of reasons why I lost: the main one being that Steve Farley locked down a lot of support very early before I could get a start. Given that he was on the ballot only a few months before this campaign got underway, this was understandable. Also, I was hoping to take some time off of work in the weeks before the primary, but the sudden illness of my supervisor made that impossible. I suppose that if I had the advantages of incumbency, I would have placed higher than fourth. I wouldn't guess that former Rep. Thompson would know anything about that. The funny part is why the heck Thompson decided to write me in the first place. I mean, why is it even worthwhile? Hearing that I'm getting under the skin of certain Maricopa County Republicans only gives me an inflated ego and just means I'll write more. Maybe writing me made him feel better, since his political career seems to be over. I went back to see what I said to prompt this. I did write one mildly nasty post about him, but if he can't handle that, then it's best for him that he's out of public life. And heck, it wasn't any worse than what people in his own party have said about him. (Scroll down to "Look Back in Anger") Well, keep those cards and letters coming, folks.|W|P|115824014417072335|W|P|Word of Advice to Folks that Send Me Snippy e-Mails: It Only Encourages Me|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/14/2006 08:11:00 AM|W|P| Liza|W|P|Tedski,
Maybe you're too sensitive for politics.

You know, I think that we, the electorate, should be very appreciative of those people who come forward to run for public office. Unless you're a well-known, well-loved, well-funded incumbent, it has to be pretty rough. Quite frankly, I am absolutely certain that I could never subject myself to that kind of public scrutiny, and I think we need to acknowledge those who do.

So, Tedski, for what its worth, thanks for trying.9/14/2006 09:38:00 AM|W|P| Thane Eichenauer|W|P|I am curious exaclty what the 10.6% represents?9/14/2006 12:17:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|The thing that bugged me about the lack of photo on the Pima County site was the guy that kept that site up to date was...the guy that took my photo for my lit. I don't know why he never posted it.9/14/2006 04:16:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ted, I am sorry you lost. And I feel bad that I could not help you campaign. :(9/14/2006 05:44:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|I may be the only reader here who actually voted for you!

I was sorry to see you didn't pull it out. Hope you run for something else. It definitely takes cajones to put yourself out there like that.

I was inundated with mailers for LD28. And I live in an apartment -which are usually the first to be nixed in the interest of cost cutting - so that's saying something. Interestingly, most of the mailers for the House race were from Heinz. Made me wonder how he was getting funded...?9/14/2006 06:22:00 PM|W|P| TimWilsonAZ|W|P|Wow, Thompson is a wanker.

It takes guts to get out there and take all those blows. I'm glad we in the blogosphere have someone like Tedski that has those cajones.9/14/2006 06:53:00 PM|W|P| eckeric|W|P|Hey, Tedski had almost as many votes as Latas and more than A-Rod. And next time he will do better since volunteers will not all be sucked into CD 8.9/14/2006 08:13:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|For a while I thought Ted actually got more votes then Tom but that changed. Darn I was so hoping to tease Tom about that.9/15/2006 12:24:00 AM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Hey, I thought the 'coneheads' were just a "Saturday Night Live" skit.

I know. Be nice. Be nice. Be nice.

(guffaw.)9/13/2006 09:50:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Think of the mess we could have avoided if she had just pulled out that 1994 election...|W|P|115820953249364692|W|P|Governor Ann Richards, 1933-2006|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 01:50:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Randy Graf, as quoted in this morning's Arizona Daily Star:

Gabby Giffords wanted me.

|W|P|115818074064216522|W|P|Then He Woke Up|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 02:24:00 PM|W|P| Liza|W|P|Tedski,
Is it possible that you might be projecting your own desires onto Mr. Graf? I have a feeling he has fantasies about Ms. Giffords that are very different from your own.9/13/2006 03:13:00 PM|W|P| x4mr|W|P|heh heh heh

Also got a chuckle out of the languaging and had reaction similar to PK.

A little curious, Liza, about your having a feeling about Graf's fantasies.9/13/2006 03:49:00 PM|W|P| Liza|W|P|x4mr,
No, he's not my type if that's what you're thinking. All of my husbands and boyfriends have been much taller.

Anyhow, here's something kind of funny for you guys. My husband is a golf fanatic and he's actually a very good player. I asked him how a background in golf would be beneficial to someone in the House of Representatives. He thinks about this and says, "When you play golf you have to have a razor sharp focus on what you are doing. You have to totally concentrate on your goal and you can't allow yourself to think about the mistakes you made on previous holes."

I have to admit, I'm still wondering if all that means anything. Maybe Randy can do something with it...

phx kid,
I thought the same. Its Tedski who needs the cold shower.9/13/2006 04:05:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Nah, Ted's madcap love affair with Gabby was over a long time ago, she cried, he was strongly silent and I am going to get throttled the next time both of them see me.9/13/2006 04:41:00 PM|W|P| Craig|W|P|Elizabeth - would that throttling be before or after the general election?

I mean, throttling a normal person is one thing, but throttling a JP has to be a felony or something.

That might stop Tedski's next run for office in its tracks.

Of course, you *are* a state-renowned wiseass...they might just cut him a little slack.

:))9/13/2006 05:51:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Nah, it was provoked.9/14/2006 06:01:00 AM|W|P| Rex Scott|W|P|Graf is indeed fortunate that he will be part of a united, fired-up and sure to be well-funded conservative ticket with Munsil, Kyl, Montgomery and (up here in the Northwest) Melvin and Jorgenson. This is a big challenge for Democrats statewide as such a ticket could cut into the vote margin we usually get in Southern Arizona and endanger both Napolitano and Pederson, not to mention local candidates. I will also acknowledge the fact that Graf is a disciplined and focused candidate and those qualities helped him to be named the whip in his caucus during just his second term in Phoenix.

The hope is to get independents (who don't usually go with the far right or far left) and the few remaining moderate Republicans to close ranks with a Democratic Party that needs to turn out ALL of its voters. That means more than just painting the GOP as narrow or extreme; it also means laying out a cogent agenda addressing immigration/border security, health care, education and a myriad of other issues. What is both inspiring and reassuring is that we have articulate and well-funded candidates who can get that message across.

Were I Giffords, I'd be pointing to exactly why Graf talks so much about immigration: he is remarkably out of touch when it comes to most other issues. His voting record in the Legislature aligns him squarely with the unpopular and failed leaders of both that body and the U.S. Congress. I do think Gabby can and should engage Graf on immigration, but I think she should also describe in vivid detail why Graf dwells on the topic at length.9/14/2006 10:58:00 AM|W|P| Liza|W|P|Dang, this thread got serious.

Rex says: "That means more than just painting the GOP as narrow or extreme; it also means laying out a cogent agenda addressing immigration/border security, health care, education and a myriad of other issues."

Well, now you have my attention. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that the small amount of pressure on the Democratic Party to actually stand for something is coming from a place considerably left of center.

How soon we forget. A "leftist" group had a two page ad in "The Nation" (9-26) that is really profound, to say the least. I have to type this excerpt because its not on the web, but here it is:

"Twelve years ago Newton Leroy Gingrich assembled an army of well-scrubbed young Republicans, equipped them with a ten-point 'Contract with America' and sent them out to do battle with Democrats. All they accomplished was to win 53 seats, take over the House, and turn Bill Clinton into a Republican."

"1994 was not unlike today. A president loses the confidence of the people. There's a queasy, spreading sense of gloom: Is the country going to hell? But that similarity does not entirely explain Gingrich's success.
Gingrich succeeded because he honored the First Law of Competition: You can't beat something with nothing. He gave his minions ideas. They were old ideas. They were bad ideas. But they were not nothing." (end quote)

The Democrats, as far as I know, have not converged on anything other than raising the minimum wage (duh) and not privatizing Social Security. If there is anything else they agree on, as a Party, I'm not aware of it.

You can't be discussing what you represent on September 14 when the election is in November. The Republicans have subjected the nation to one debacle after another for six years, and the Democrats aren't sure they can pick up 15 seats in the House. That's because all they have to offer that you can count on is that they aren't registered as Republicans.

And, interestingly enough, I filled out a survey about two weeks ago for Howard Dean. I was chosen because I'm still a precinct committeeperson. There were questions about Iraq, Social Security, whatever...The Democrats are trying to figure it out. What a relief, huh?9/14/2006 06:14:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You know, I am so sick and tired of being told my party has no ideas.

We have asix point plan on our website, our national chairman among other party leaders talks about it during interviews and yet...all you EVER hear is that we do not have one!

Do we have to wear t-shirts? Do we need to tattoo it on our foreheads? What do we have to do? Force every Democratic candidate to toe one line only? (Which would be completely un-Democratic of the party.)9/14/2006 07:23:00 PM|W|P| Liza|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers,
Are you serious? That's the plan?
That isn't even a good VISION STATEMENT.

Take this one, for example:
"We will join 36 other industrialized nations in making sure everyone has access to affordable health care, starting by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical research."

Yes, all 50 million of you working poor out there who are getting payday loans to feed your family, just hang in there, the Democrats are coming with "affordable health care". We have absolutely no idea what that means but we do know that it will be "affordable" and it will be "healthcare."

The other five points are equally vague and, to spare you, I won't even get started on foreign policy. And, no one has heard of the six points, so it won't have much of an impact.

Face it, the Democrats are trying to get by in 2006 on "vote the bums out." We're supposed to trust that they will start doing all the right things if they can only take back the House and the Senate.

Well, I'm a lifelong Independent who is temporarily a Democrat, and it just doesn't satisfy me. Now I find myself thinking about something Ronald Reagan said and I don't particularly like him but one thing he said has resonated with me for many years. He said that you can't enlighten Congress, you enlighten the people, and they put pressure on Congress. He's right, of course. Constructive social and political changes originate with populist movements and that's almost always been the case. And, like I said, the pressure seems to be building on the left to motivate the Democrats to start converging on some REAL direction. Unfortunately, the Democrats are so worried about 2008, they are almost paralyzed.9/14/2006 09:06:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Liza,

Well you asked for a plan. I pointed out our plan. Why no incredibly detailed legislation? Because 1. this is from the national party and not from someone in Congress like with the Republican ideas and 2. unlike the Republicans we understand that legislation is not something easy to throw together and get passed. By being flexible with details we can actually get what we want done without having the Republicans either trash or steal our ideas (only to ruin them and say that it is our fault because we thought them up.) And this also means we can let each candidate discuss them in their own way.

Of the original Contract with America, only 2 provisions made it past the Senate. And one of them caused Enron. Plus most people never heard of it. The reason that the Republicans won is they had effective campaigning, a tired opposition plagued by scandals and an unpopular president to run against. Sounds familiar does it not?

Now as to people forcing change: Slavery, Women's Right to Vote, Civil Rights movement. Yes it does take the people pushing the government to change. By electing different people, getting the states to experiment and other things like that.9/15/2006 05:47:00 AM|W|P| Rex Scott|W|P|Liza-

Plans that are put before voters are general in their scope because the meat and potatoes behind implementing them comes later when legislation is proposed, debated, revised and then passed. I'm happy that Elizabeth pointed out the Democrats' plan because it speaks to our commitments and priorities. It also offers a vivid contrast to the GOP, whose plans are evident by what they have made their priorities while controlling the legislative agenda.

I think it's also important to point out that plenty of Democrats not considered to be left of center are putting forth fresh and thought-provoking ideas. They include governors such as Tim Kaine in Virginia, Mike Easley in North Carolina and our own Janet Napolitano. I would also give a nod to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who has also served as a governor and who is putting forth some terrific proposals in the areas of energy policy and national service.

As someone who was an independent for four years and who was a Republican for twelve years before that, I get that the two parties frustrate and perplex many voters. Part of that is what occurs when factions within those parties vie with each other for control of the party. You see that happening in the GOP right now in both our state and the nation as a whole.

Nevertheless, I am proud to be a Democrat at this stage in our nation's political history and hope that I will always feel a part of this great party. I also hope that divergent views and open, honest debate will always be a part of being a Democrat. Exclusivity and intolerance were what caused me to leave the Republicans in 2000.9/15/2006 09:10:00 AM|W|P| Liza|W|P|Elizabeth and Rex,
Interesting comments and I appreciate what you're saying. I fully understand that details must be preceded by main points which must be preceded by concepts, etc...I spent many years building process models for software developers and I am very familiar with "drilling down" techniques.

I would just point out two things:
1. Hardly anyone knows about the six points so they are unlikely to impact the election.
2. Your six points are highly conceptual and they exclude many areas of vital concern such as foreign policy.

In other words, you need to expand your concepts and "drill down."

I feel I'm beating a dead horse, but take Social Security for example. Social Security is the crown jewel of Democratic achievement. Here's what you say:

"We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security."

This might be your best point, because everyone understands something about Social Security privatization now thanks to Dubya. However, most Americans don't know a great deal about the Social Security Trust Fund. The Democrats should commit to honoring the trillions of dollars of debt that is owed to the SSTF and the Democrats should commit to stop using the Social Security surplus to disguise the real level of annual federal budget deficits. In other words, Democrats, say SOMETHING REAL. Drill down, build consensus, and win more elections.

I respect the fact that you are proud to be Democrats and I envy your optimism. However, optimism is a feeling and, in this case, it must be supported by realistic, substantive ideas that the voters will embrace as a new direction.

Lastly, you need to listen. I think there are some very good messages going your way. You need to listen.

Good Luck!9/15/2006 04:08:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Liza,

Social Security was defended, I felt, quite successfully by the Democrats.

Also, when it comes to foriegn policy, we are internationalists who believe in building relationships with other countries and using our influence to stop human rights abuses (not that we always succeed at this but...) yet foriegn policy is something that a President is the main point person on (usually through the Secretary of State.) Exactly how do you expect the Democrats in Congress to do the President's job?9/15/2006 04:30:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|S.admt 4936

Found this on the DU. This looks like a plan (even if it was shot down.)9/13/2006 01:29:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I had a conversation a few years ago with a Phoenix area political hack who told me that soon there would be a time when a Democrat would not have to campaign outside of Phoenix. For years in Republican primaries, a candidate could carry Maricopa county and nothing else (Jane Hull, for example, lost most of the counties outside of Maricopa in her 1994 primary), but Democrats had to be everywhere. This operative told me that soon would be a day where Democratic candidates from Phoenix, like their Republican counterparts, would not have to bother with visiting Bisbee, Yuma, Flagstaff or even Tucson. He talked about this like it was going to be heaven. Well, apparently, that day isn't here yet. I know that Slade Mead made several appearances down here, but Jason Williams busted his ass. I found myself face to face with his school bus while making a left on Speedway yesterday. I got mail from Williams, never from Mead. Bear in mind that I voted for Mead. Williams carried every county but one, some of them by ridiculous margins. He carried Apache County, for example, by a nearly three to one margin. The one that Williams did not carry? Maricopa county, where he was bested by a scant 77 votes. So, it appears that Pima County and Greater Arizona still hold some sway in Democratic primaries. My boots do need some shining... NB - I introduced Slade Mead to Pat Darcy once. Darcy, a Tucson resident and Democrat, was the unlucky pitcher that gave up the famous run to Carlton Fisk in game six of the 1975 World Series. Mead was at the game, but didn't have the heart to tell Darcy that he was rooting for the Red Sox.|W|P|115817998879393450|W|P|Superintendent of Public Instruction Thoughts|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 04:00:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Well is there anything wrong with Jason Williams?9/13/2006 04:10:00 PM|W|P| Liza|W|P|elizabeth rogers,
Jason Williams is as good as it gets. If you ever get a chance to hear him speak, do it. He is one of the most articulate, eloquent speakers I have heard in my life and I am not easy to impress. Truthfully, Jason and Slade were both great candidates. I attended one of their debates several months ago and everyone loved both of them. It was really kind of funny and something you rarely see.

I hesitate to endorse Jason because all my favorites end up being losers and I'm not sure if its me or them. Maybe I'll just send him money.

By the way, Jason needs money. He did not run as a clean elections candidate and he needs money. I don't know why he didn't run clean elections.9/13/2006 08:19:00 PM|W|P| Liza|W|P|kralmajales,
Jason Williams is a brilliant man and it takes very little time for him to convey that to an audience. I was literally in awe of him and I don't know diddly-squat about public education in Arizona. Also, Jason is an educator where Slade is not and Jason is very passionate about being an educator. I honestly don't think Slade's Republican roots hurt him. When I attended the debate with Jason and Slade, people in the the audience were saying how hard it would be to choose between them.

I strongly encourage everyone to support Jason. He is a man on fire when it comes to education. is9/13/2006 08:27:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Okay Liza.9/13/2006 01:20:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Suprise! Janet Napolitano won. She won every precinct in every county. Whodathunk it? On the Republican side, on the surface it looks like organization trumped name id. But if you look at where Don Goldwater did well, it was in the border counties. He carried every single one, his best being Yuma County where he got nearly 60% of the vote. He also carried La Paz and Mohave counties. This leads me to wonder if this was more than Len Munsil's organization versus Goldwater's name, that it was more about Munsil's softer immigration stance versus Goldwater's round 'em up stance. I heard talk of a Mormon - Evangelical split that was highlighted by Goldwater's support by LDS legislators and Munsil's endorsement by others. I always wondered when this would happen, since theologically the two groups shouldn't get along. I don't have precinct data, but when I take a look at a counties with large Mormon populations, Graham, Apache et cetera, Munsil carried those. Doesn't look like this schism actually happened. The "split" may have been more among Maricopa County politicians than among actual voters.|W|P|115817920653928420|W|P|Governor Thoughts|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 05:09:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|The unexpected results in LD26 may have something to do with a significant number of moderate independents choosing to vote in the Dem primary for the CD8 race because many of them (those I know, anyway) are die-hard Gabby supporters.

Not the only explanation, but neither is assuming a hard-right turn of the electorate in LD26.9/13/2006 01:15:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Associated Press is reporting that Jim Kolbe is refusing to endorse Randy Graf.|W|P|115817876506813417|W|P|It Starts Here!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/14/2006 12:48:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Graf ran a really nasty, mean campaign against Kolbe two years ago.

This may be a lesson in negative campaigning. If you beat somebody up too badly (especially somebody in your own party) especially with over the line personal attacks, then you may end up paying the price for it down the road. We assume that Democratic politicans are first and foremost Democrats and the Republican politicians are first and foremost Republicans, but we forget that they are first and foremost human beings, who can be hurt, offended or angered just like other people.9/13/2006 01:02:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I'm, of course, happy for Gabrielle Giffords. When I saw that Randy Graf v Steve Huffman was going to be close, I was hoping for one of those days long recounts plus, because of the way this race has gone, the recriminations and lawsuits. Darn. As for some of her opponents: Bob Walkup will probably not run for re-election next year, and Mayor of Tucson would be a great office for Patty Weiss to run for. Heck, it would mean she could be over Nina Trasoff again, just like in those ratings battles in 1982. I was always impressed by Jeff Latas, but I think he was poorly served by the "we are the only ones who care and everyone else sucks" attitude of some of his supporters. Alex Rodriguez's future will be governed by whether he is seen as a ambitious go-getter, or some young punk who is too big for his britches. He conducted himself well in this campaign, so I'm guessing the former. Props to Weiss, who personally showed up to Giffords's victory party to congratulate and publicly pledge her support to her. It looks like the national money (late support came in not only from the NRCC but in the form of contributions from state Republican parties in Colorado and New Mexico) may have boosted Huffman, but not quite enough. There is a rumor going around here in Blogistan that the NRCC will abandon this seat since Graf is the nominee. Not a chance. They need to hold this seat. If we get into October and Graf is still ten or eleven points behind, maybe they'll pull out. But, look how far behind Huffman was when they started shoveling money into the race. As for the DCCC, they are not taking this for granted, NRCC money or no. One more word on those NRCC ads. Who, in Tucson, has ever refered to the mayor as "Robert"? This is what happens when those out of towners jump in.|W|P|115817852304992873|W|P|CD 8 Thoughts|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 03:49:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Wow, that is pretty decent of Weiss. My opponent has yet to concede or maybe he does not have my number. But then do write-ins concede?9/13/2006 06:54:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Yeah, I know many Democrats were hoping for a Joe Sweeney victory, but the fact that a major party in 21st century America nominated a bigotted, paranoid moron like him against a not-great-but-adequate opponent in 2004 made me wonder if this whole democracy thing was such a great idea. A Raúl Grijalva - Ron Drake race will be an interesting battle of ideas...oh wait, Drake will actually have to campaign down here. In person even. Will Drake debate Grijalva? He was too scared to debate Sweeney, even though he would have routed him. Easy prediction: Sweeney will run again in 2008.|W|P|115815879041250970|W|P|CD 7 Thoughts|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 01:15:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P||W|P|115813541202608223|W|P|CD 8 Primary Result, Plus Bonus Prediction for TRD Championship|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/13/2006 09:00:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|*speculates who on earth that car could belong to with Buzzcocks right under the Gabby sign*9/14/2006 02:35:00 PM|W|P| Eli Blake|W|P|Excellent to hear about the show of unity.

As I've posted on Ted's blog innumerable times, our failure to do that in district one very probably cost us the seat in 2002 against Richmond Rickey.

So glad to see that you folks aren't making the same mistake down there. If anything, with Kolbe refusing to endorse Graf, it looks like the Republicans are the ones more likely to face the results of fractionation.9/13/2006 01:10:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P||W|P|115813509981757654|W|P|Don de las Aguas Doradas Ponders Political Future|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/12/2006 10:18:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|From R-Cubed's I-Didn't-Say-That-He-Did Department: From yesterday's Talking Points Memo Midterm Roundup:

The Midterm Roundup might respectfully remark that for a politician, [Gabrielle] Giffords is quite a fox.

Something else I read in there was that while Tomás Tancredo has been actively supporting Randy Graf, his own Republican party wrote a check to Steve Huffman. Tancredo's people have had the requisite show of indignation for that one.|W|P|115808297111474066|W|P|Last Minute CD-8 Roundup|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/12/2006 12:25:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|what is an e-partment?9/12/2006 12:35:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|Would you believe that e-partment is hip internet slang?

No?

Well, I fixed the typo.9/12/2006 03:52:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Actually Ted since you are way more hip then I am (even if you use the word hip) I would believe it.9/11/2006 03:26:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I want to take a little break from the political back and forth to mark the passing of a man who dedicated himself to our community and a man that was my boss and friend. Reuben Nuñez passed away yesterday after a short battle with cancer of the stomach. He fought in the Korean War and even suffered as a prisoner of the Chinese for a short time. Upon returning to Tucson, he was a police officer (all of his children are police as well). I was never clear if he was Tucson Police or a Sheriff's deputy, or both. The wall of his office featured a personal note from former Surgeon General Richard Carmona, who he met when Carmona was a Pima County Sheriff's Deputy. He was also part of the effort that started El Rio Neighborhood Center, that eventually led to the clinic that has been crucial to the health of west siders for decades. His main focus was in education. Early on, he helped start the adult education program at Pima Community College and worked for it for years. He told me once that he used my mother's columns as part of his english-as-a-second-language classes. He worked for many years at SER-Jobs for Progress, the program that I work for. He was director of education there, coordinating not only programs for youth like the one I work in, but ESL and job training for adults. The students, for the most part, loved and trusted him. He earned this respect because he respected them. He kicked students out (it happens) but they would often call back weeks or even months later and he would give them a second chance. I wish I could find a way to be as patient. He was also a man of great faith. When my brother was having his problems last year, Reuben told me, "You tell him I'm praying for him." He hadn't met Tom, but he knew me and thought he was a guy that was doing right by the community. He said it like a man who had long conversations with the Blessed Virgin every night. There will be no services for him. He spoke to a co-worker about a recently deceased friend, "So, we had a rosary, then we had the mass, and what did he get from all that barillo?" Well, I guess we'll have to come up with our own send off then.|W|P|115801486097381841|W|P|A Passing|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/12/2006 02:40:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|Just feel like someone ought to comment on this thread.

My heartfelt condolences. He sounds like he was a wonderful person. I'm sure he will be missed deeply.9/10/2006 05:09:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|According to a poll done by the firm Harstad Strategic Research, Jim Pederson now only trails Jon Kyl by a scant 6%, with the current score being 47%-41%. That really ain't much. One of the things that may account for this is Pederson's ad blitz, which has raised his name ID to 68%. Y'all have probably read all of this before, since it has been reported on other blogs, but one thing that I found really interesting is that Pederson has a 5% lead among independents. Kyl's polling must be showing something similar, since his changed his tack in his message from "Time magazine said Ted Kennedy and I are the best Senators!" to hitting at Pederson for being "negative" and for being too rich. The Republicans are now against concentrated wealth. The part that made me laugh was a statement by Kyl's spokesman, Andy Chasin, in a kickoff of the new "Ma, Jimmy is Picking on Me" message. The statement features John McCain endorsing Kyl and condemning Pederson. We are supposed to be floored that Kyl is being defended by his fellow Republican Senator. Chasin said this:

John McCain is viewed by many as a "referee" in American politics, and he’s called foul on Jim Pederson

Hey Chasin, I don't watch an awful lot of sports, but generally, a referee does not wear the colors of one team or the other, right? McCain is fulfilling his role here as a fellow Republican office holder who will need Kyl's support when he runs for president in two years. McCain's reputation as somehow beyond party defies any actual examination of his record. Back in the '90s, he and the now disgraced Fife Symington were hand in glove when it came time to exact punishment on Republican moderates (such things existed back then) and in 2000, he continued to support candidates such as Rosalie Lopez and Jeff Groscost with "robo calls" and mailers long after the party had realized how problematic they were. These are not the actions of a non-partisan "referee." Here are the guys who ridiculed Pederson for calling himself "independent" a few months ago calling McCain a non-partisan "referee." That takes stones. But, as I said, the attacks are sticking. It was easy for Kyl to pile up the nearly $3,000,000 in contributions back in 2000 when the only people there to call him on it were a green and some guy named William Toel. Say, Jon, why did you need all that money back then? So, now, finally someone is calling him out, and he really doesn't have a response other than "Time magazine loves me..." The image that Kyl has been trying to build of just the regular guy in the denim shirt that only wants to do right by his constituents is being replaced by the image of just another smooth talking beltway politician in an expensive suit. The truth hurts, don't it?|W|P|115793656642672629|W|P|Pederson Gains Ground in New Poll|W|P|prezelski@aol.com9/10/2006 06:12:00 PM|W|P| Tedski|W|P|807 Voters, MOE 3.5%9/10/2006 08:03:00 PM|W|P| Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|November 8th is going to be ever so interesting. :D

The question is, will the Rs ever manage to convince anyone that we should be too scared to elect anyone else again?9/11/2006 10:39:00 AM|W|P| Tony GOPrano|W|P|You Demiots crack me up! That poll was Pederson's poll. All the other polls show Sen. Kyl up by double digits. Spend your $$$ Jimbo, we GOPers are ROFL!!!9/11/2006 07:44:00 PM|W|P| Michael|W|P|I'll wait until a non-internet-based, reliable third party poll confirms the findings of these two polls before I get my hopes up.

That said, Pederson's new ads are just what the doctor ordered: hitting Kyl where he's most vulnerable - his abysmal legislative record that has just been destructive to the working and middle classes.