12/31/2006 11:08:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The most popular posts this year, as determined by the number of responses:
  1. Oops! - 62 comments
  2. Pederson Retroactively Endorses Dean for President, I Guess - 57 comments
  3. CD 8 Polling Numbers Straight from the Wick Newspaperin' Empire - 56 comments
  4. Dueling Press Releases - 51 comments
  5. Howard Dean Endorses...? - 47 comments
  6. I Don't Know Albert, We Don't Know Anyone Named Ann Onymous - 47 comments
  7. Exploding. Plastic. Inevitable. - 45 comments
  8. My Opponent Is a Lying Cheat, But I Mean That in the Most Positive Way - 45 comments
  9. Hey Rocky... - 43 comments
  10. A Bit of a Response - 40 comments
All but one of these was about the CD 8 race. In comparison, Last year's top entry (also on the CD 8 race) would not have even made the top ten.|W|P|116758977820046254|W|P|This Year's Top Posts, As Determined By You, My Adoring Readers|W|P|prezelski@aol.com1/02/2007 09:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Hmmmm ... I guess the CD8 race lived up to the expectation as being one of the most closely watched races in the country.12/31/2006 09:27:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A bit of an update from before: Lisa James's website is now up and active. Since it is still new, the "news" section is a bit thin, with only two entries. One is a rather interesting choice: a post from ThinkRight Arizona that endorses James's candidacy. Why would it be odd to put up a lauditory article? Well, here is how it starts:
For those of you out there in conspiracy land, take the aluminum foil off of your head.
Great way to start, call those of you that aren't on your side a bunch of whack jobs. That'll win them over. As if who ThinkRight was pointing to was not clear, here is his closer:
But, I guess, if she’s not YOUR conservative, then she don’t count.
Yep, go ahead and call them out...excellent. Yes, I know, she didn't write it. But why post something on her site that alienates most of the people that she hopes will be voting for her? Heck, if this indicates how she will run the Republican Party, then go ahead guys, put her in charge. We'll have the governor's office for another twenty years. I gotta give credit to Zelph for pointing this out to me. He made an excellent point: this from a woman works for a PR firm?|W|P|116758351416209928|W|P|Vote for Me, You Paranoid Whacko!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/31/2006 03:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger toc001|W|P|Let's see we have quite a selection!

Len Munsil, uber wingnut

Fife(to ten) Symington

and Ken (my kid's a rapist) Bennett

Lisa James, "close friend of the Bush family"

This is going to be a good year!

Happy New Year all!1/02/2007 05:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|You left out my favorite line though:

"Things are not being scripted by the underworld."

I thought this was an interesting thing to say given Henley's connection to Kemper Marley. John McCain's wife is now in charge of Hensley.

Jim Hensley, Cindy's father, was supposedly given his beer distributorship in return for doing prison time for illegal beer distribution and keeping his mouth shut about Marley's criminal activities.

http://tiodt.blogspot.com/2006/12/married-to-mob.html

A question for Republicans: Is a appointed precinct committeeman eligible to run for State Chairman of the Repuplican Party?1/02/2007 05:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|You were wondering why she's in PR...

The firm is called Gordon C. James Public Relations.

Does that answer your question?12/30/2006 05:23:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Yesterday's Citizen had an interview with Jim Kolbe that was both a retrospective of his career and a list of his problems with the Republican party. The article touches upon the federal investigation into a trip he took with some interns to the Grand Canyon. Kolbe points out that nothing was substantiated. I wasn't sure what to think of the story myself. Tales of Kolbe hitting on one male page/aide/campaign worker or another have circulated for years, even before he was publicly out. But these stories always had a urban legend quality about them. They always seemed to have happened to "the cousin of this guy I know" or some equally marginal source. Frankly, it seemed that these stories only had any currency because some people think that all gay men are naturally on the prowl for young men. The bulk of the interview is about Kolbe's disappointment with the direction of the Republican party. In particular, the current obsession in some quarters with social issues like gay marriage. This may seem a bit odd, since he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (a vote which resulted in his outing). His statements on this matter have earned some notice nationally, über-Blog Talking Points Memo has a feature about the interview. His warnings about the direction of the Republican party will probably go unheeded. A quick perusal of the comments show some claiming that Kolbe lost touch with the voters of Southern Arizona on issues like immigration. They continue to say this even though the candidate that shared their views on the subject and campaigned heavily on it lost. I'm not quite sure how they read that...but that's okay...they can keep it up and lose the next election too. NB - I had the chance to vote against Kolbe nine times, and hapilly did so on eight of those occasions. I even voted for Gary Auerbach. The one time I voted for Kolbe was in 1990, when the Democrats nominated a freak named Chuck Phillips.|W|P|116752786161608896|W|P|Jim's the Fall|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/28/2006 03:53:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Tipped off to this by Talking Points Memo, the blog that this humble spot on the internet hopes to be someday. Check this out: This might be an innocent observation by the MSNBC folks, you know, hey, look, a rich guy that gives a damn. My worry is that this is once again the Republican spin from 2004: Edwards is a hypocrite for talking about working people while he himself is wealthy. The Republicans can say this because they are against the elites and no millionaire in America is a registered member of the Republican party, right? I'll forget this whole thing if the next time they show the President "clearing brush" on his ranch they put up something like "Wealthy Connecticut Born Yale and Harvard Alum Just a Regular Guy and Texas Cowboy."|W|P|116734697769481629|W|P|Darn That Edwards, Why Doesn't He Act Like a Good Millionaire?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/29/2006 01:46:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|They can rail against a rich Democrat running all they want (not that it hurt Franklin Roosevelt or the Kennedys to be rich-- some people would say its refreshing to see a rich guy willing to tax himself). Let's say for the sake or argument that he gets the nomination and ends up running against John McCain (also a multi-millionaire.)

Edwards: earned his money.

McCain: married his money.

Let the Republicans say whatever they want in that case.12/28/2006 08:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In case you need further proof that our system of justice works, even if it may take a time or two: Roy Warden was convicted yesterday of charges of assault, threats and intimidation stemming from an incident back in June when Warden pushed a teenaged camera operator. So, here's what I don't get: the guy does this Mexican flag burning routine for publicity, then gets mad at the folks that are shooting pictures? Until this week, Warden's obnoxiousness hadn't been found criminal by our local courts. There were the letters accusing a Star editor of being a "hairy chested lesbian" and his attempt to disrupt services at the Cathedral. Of course, these couldn't be prosecuted. He was indicted for doing something similar to the June incident during a rally at Armory Park, but he was acquitted in that case. The sentencing is in January. Say, I think I missed a tilde in the title...naw, can't be that important.|W|P|116732277435320652|W|P|Feliz Ano Nuevo, Señor Warden!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/28/2006 09:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger azwildcat88|W|P|Warden's flag burning doesn't bother me, just as other protests that burn US flags don't bother me. He was trying to make a point. One that I partially agree with. (I was very bothered b the protesters waving the flags of Mexico and other nations at the pro immigrant rallies)

I don't like the man's stance on immigration and and his actions on other fronts (harrasing voters)are appalling. I do feel, however, that some of the counter protestors were overly confrontational to him.12/29/2006 01:51:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Given his erratic and overcharged behavior, my own sentencing suggestion would include a prescription for Lithium.12/29/2006 07:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Wildcat-

He wasn't charged with protesting or burning a flag, I'd have a problem with that. His legal problems stemmed from his actions when he actually assaulted people. He has threatened people on a number of occasions, even carrying a gun when he does his "protests." Do some of the people opposed to him go too far and confront him? Yeah, probably. That still doesn't give him an excuse.12/29/2006 08:10:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|AZwildcat88,
How do you feel when Irish-Americans wave the Irish flag on St Patrick’s Day? I am an Irish-American, is that ok? I know what counties my family comes from in the old country. I am very proud of the fact that the Irish built the modern Democratic Party. Please try to remember just because you don’t know where you come from don’t expect me to forget where I am from.

It really gets under my skin when people get bent about ethnic pride. I just have to ask, is is it all flags or just flags of non European Americans?12/29/2006 10:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger redcardphreek|W|P|az blue dog,

The protests that wildcat was mentioning did not occur on a national or ethnic holiday such as St. Patrick's day in your example. It occured at rallies in support of amnesty for people who are here illegally. Whatever your belief on what should be done with the illegal immigrant problem, Many Many Americans have a problem with foreigners in this country demanding that they be given certain rights while they wave their native countries flag. It created a backlash, which is why at the later rallies you saw many more American flags.12/29/2006 02:48:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|"Many Many Americans have a problem with foreigners in this country demanding that they be given certain rights while they wave their native countries flag."

Tell me why do you think all the people who had flags across the US were foreigners? If they were Irish, Italian or Polish would they look American??1/16/2007 05:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Roy Warden|W|P|Hay Rummy!

You now think the American justice system finally got it "right" with my conviction, right?

Last month you thought the system got it "wrong" when I was acquitted, right?

So, what are you going to say when the Appellate Courts overturn my conviction, which I assure you they will. Will you then say the system got it "wrong"?

I guess you think the system has it "right" only when it convicts the people you don't agree with politically.

You don't care about truth and justice; you simply care about having the police arrest those you don't agree with.

Why don't you come to the sentencing on January 22, 2007. You will see me shove my "conviction" right up Judge Hays ass!

Don't believe me? Go to www.wardenburnsmexicanflags.com and see how its done.12/28/2006 08:51:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I disabled "Pop-up Politicians." Many of you, particularly Firefox users, have complained about how slow the page is loading and these complaints seem to correspond to when I started using Pop-up Politicians. In retrospect, I don't know how much using it brought to the page, since a link to the member's home page would be just as useful to you all. Those of you that have been having trouble, go ahead and e-mail me and tell me if the problem is fixed. Thank you.|W|P|116732133415305016|W|P|More Housekeeping|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/28/2006 10:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mister T in AZ|W|P|IT FINALLY WORKS AGAIN --- YEAH!12/27/2006 07:14:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|John Edwards was hoping to put off his presidential announcement until tommorrow, but apparently today his website became hot for a while and then was taken down. No matter, really. I mean, who thought he wasn't going to run? He has made two excellent speeches in Tucson during the 2006 campaign. The speeches were not standard issue, "Ain't Tucson great, I love the Wildcats, vote for Mark Manoil" rhetorical drivel. These were definitely presidential campaign speeches. Not only that, they revolved almost entirely around the issues of poverty and the working class. These are the sorts of issues that Edwards hopes to highlight in the most powerfully symbolic way in his announcement tommorrow, which will be from New Orleans's Ninth Ward. This will be the first announcement by a candidate who can actually get the Democratic nomination. Sorry Tom and Dennis. Way back in 2002 (so long ago, eh?), a friend asked me what I thought of the then gelling presidential field. I went through the folks I thought I would run, and my friend said, "What about John Edwards?" I said, "Nice haircut, but I don't see the heft there." I didn't realize that she was close to some Edwards staffers. Big mistake. At the time, I thought he was just a political climber. I see a lot more to him now that I've seen him speak on a number of occasions and seen the issues he's chosen to associate himself with. Heck, what standard issue politico would use precious media face time to talk about Uganda? As for the political field: Edwards came to Arizona on a couple of occasions to campaign for candidates, and this may mean some organizational advantages here. Raúl Grijalva was worked heavilly by Edwards's campaign in 2004, but the issue of the war was foremost in his mind and he went for Howard Dean. The layout is a bit different now, and Grijalva has grown close to Edwards. Edwards campagned for Gabrielle Giffords along with other Democratic candidates, but another possible candidate, Bill Richardson, came out to campaign for Giffords as well. Getting early commitments does not always lead to victory. In 2004, with our early primary, Joe Lieberman worked members of the legislature heavily. He got a pretty impressive slate of endorsements early on. Many of these unendorsed him as it became obvious that his campaign was going nowhere. The result? Lieberman dropped out the day of the Arizona primary before the polls had even closed. I happened upon a Draft John Edwards site. The guy has essentially been running for president for four years now (even his Vice Presidential run could be seen as a dry run for an eventual try at the top job), doesn't he need to show some reluctance for there to be a draft movement? Yes, I was part of the effort to draft Wesley Clark a couple of years ago, but geez, at least he wasn't actually campaigning at the time. NB - Yes, I know, as a dedicated Tar Heel fan, Edwards would never say "I love the Widcats." I was just illustrating. However, he did famously say "I hate Duke basketball," in the middle of his 2004 run (a common sentiment, but maybe that's why he didn't win his home state primary?), so I guess he roots for Lute and the boys when they are up against the Blue Devils.|W|P|116727547863169751|W|P|John Edwards to Announce Tommorrow...Oh, Wait, He Did? Wait, He Didn't.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/28/2006 05:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Tedski,
Its interesting how you manage to connect the name of "Gabrielle Giffords" to a large number of your posts when there is obviously no reason to do so. Why don't you wait until she actually does something to write about her?12/28/2006 08:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Liza-

Well...I mentioned her along with the other congressman from Southern Arizona. Just because you don't like her doesn't mean I should pretend that she doesn't exist and won't be a player in Southern Arizona Politics.

A while back, I wrote a post about the lame Time "Man of the Year" issue and you and Tuttle are the ones who brought Gabby's name up, not me, but this was given as more evidence of my supposed obsession (this came complete with a tasteful masturbation joke from Tuttle...classy, that.) This leads me to wonder who is the one obsessed.12/28/2006 10:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Well, Tedski, I haven't much control over GT's jokes and I can assure you that I'm not obsessed with Ms. Giffords. I happen to think that where she went to high school and what she reads and whatever else you seem to inject in your posts about her tends to reduce the quality of some of your posts. However, its your blog, amigo, do what you want.12/29/2006 09:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|well theres another reason bill came to campaign for Gabby and it has less to do with her campaign "assets" and more to do with other assets she has.12/27/2006 09:33:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Michael Chessman, leader of something called the Euro-British Coalition, announced last week in a short note that he has ended his e-mail campaign to Arizona legislators. What, you've never heard of Chessman or the Euro-British Coalition? Chessman's agenda was to promote British culture in Canada. He would achieve this by installing the English public school system in Canada, mandatory philosophy education for law students, oh yeah, and the installation of a monarchy in Canada. His suggestion for Queen: Emma Thompson. Oh, and he also wants more immigration from Eastern Europe. Checking his website, he seems to want this because he likes Ukranian women. Hey, he said it, check the website. I have no idea why he thought that writing to members of the Arizona legislature would be helpful in this pursuit. Maybe he stopped when he found out that Arizona was not a Canadian province.|W|P|116723868633570560|W|P|A Dedicated Epistoler Leaves the Scene|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/27/2006 10:35:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Maybe he wrote to AZ legislators because he thought some of them are as loony as he is?12/28/2006 04:13:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I do love the Young Ones photo...And to think, if it was not for that darn doughnut...12/27/2006 09:15:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| I know that carping liberals like me are supposed to hate the pardon, but I think his only mistake in that was not demanding that Richard Nixon make an appology in return. Other than that, a decent, but not great president. He even admitted this himself ("I'm a Ford, not a Lincoln."). He was an admirable public servant who brought our nation through two difficult times, the humiliating fall of Saigon and the aftermath of Watergate. I saw him once when Air Force 1 landed at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. He put on a sombrero and said "Hasta loo-ego." Lucky for him, Chevy Chase never saw that. N.B. - I changed the picture after I found out that Wactivist used the same picture (curse you Wactivist!). This is also appropriate because just like Pelé, Ford was an excellent athlete who played his football without a helmet.|W|P|116723668392793328|W|P|Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr.|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/27/2006 11:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Actually, i believe the new fashion is to hate Jerry not for the pardon but for promoting Cheney and Rummy - thus paving the way for the current mess we're in.

But how could he know? RIP, Mr. President.12/27/2006 04:34:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Boredinaz:

Well, Reagan 'promoted' Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, so there are worse things.

My guess is that in a hundred years, Ford will be about as well known a President as, say, Chester A. Arthur.12/27/2006 04:36:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|And Ted, speaking of 'Ford car' jokes, the one I remember is that we had, in fact, bought a used car from Richard M. Nixon, and it was a Ford (a play on the old campaign question that Nixon's opponents used to ask, seeking to capitalize on his reputation for questionable integrity-- 'Would you buy a used car from Richard Nixon'?)12/27/2006 05:21:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|President Ford was a good public servant. He served the public with honour, respect and did his best. He was one of the people that make being in politics worthwhile and he serves as a reminder to all that not all politicians are like Tom DeLay but hardworking and decent folks who want the best for their country.

For everyone to say upon your passing that you were a good man is a rare and better accolade then any other.12/27/2006 06:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|I suppose it is possible that Gerald Ford believed that Nixon's pardon was in the best interest of the nation as a way to put Watergate behind us. However, at the time, it seemed as though tricky Dick was given a pass and was allowed to skate out of his just punishment. All it did was remind decent, hardworking, honest Americans that powerful people are above the law, more often than not. Of course, this was back in the days when people actually cared whether or not the president was a liar.12/23/2006 09:15:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| And, in the spirit of eccumenism, a belated Salaam Aleekum to and Dennis Prager for the Eid holiday, Happy Hanukkah to Judith Reagan and Mel Gibson and Happy Kwanzaa to . Oh, and Season's Greetings to Bill O'Reilly.|W|P|116693434356507548|W|P|From the R Cubed Family to Yours, Feliz Navidad, Wesołych Świąt|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/24/2006 08:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger OVD|W|P|Why is it belated? I think Eid al-Adha is on December 30th this year.12/24/2006 08:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Wow...I thought it was last month.

It's good that I'm not Muslim then, I'd make a very poor one.12/25/2006 12:43:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Some Favorite Christmas carols this year:

We Three Kings-- George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez.

Oh Come, Let Us Adore Him-- What the Bush administration tried to replace 'Hail To the Chief' with as the official Presidential music.

Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire-- Karl Rove's realization of what the GOP Congress was as the election loomed.

Silent Night-- hundreds of GOP house parties on Nov. 7, 2006

Joy To the World-- Democrats, on Nov. 8.

The Little Drummer Boy-- Mark Foley

Hark! The Herald (angels) sing-- The Press, announcing the Foley scandal.

We Bring him Gifts-- Jack Abramoff

Oh, Little Town of Bethlehem-- a place where Santorum lost.

The Nutcracker-- is between Ted Haggard and the prostute he hired.

I'll be home for Christmas-- 30 GOP members of the 109th Congress. And some of them even left voluntarily.

Dashing through the snow-- 2008 Presidential candidates already at work in Iowa and New Hampshire (There is very little snow in Vegas).

I'm dreaming of a White Christmas-- George Allen.12/22/2006 06:39:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I just got an e-mail from All America PAC. It started "Dear Geoff..." Maybe he decided to put those presidential ambitions on hold until he gets his lists cleaned up.|W|P|116683833676167580|W|P|Senator, the Name is Spelled T...E...D|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/23/2006 02:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Espo|W|P|Hey, that isn't that bad a name to get called, if I do say so myself hahaha. Funny thing is, they sent that to you, and one to me calling me George. At least they got three letters right.12/25/2006 01:06:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|What do you call a Presidential primary debate?

-- A Senate committee hearing.12/22/2006 11:22:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of the strangest stories coming out of the recent Holocaust denial conference in Tehran was the presence of representatives of Neturei Karta, a small Hasidic sect. So, I guess the fact that they were Jews at the conference makes any of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-semetic tirades okay, right? Of course not. A recent East Valley Tribune featured a story about Frank Alvarez, a Hispanic who supports Russell Pearce's tough stand on immigration. I'm not going to doubt that there are many more like him, because I've met plenty of them. The relations between native born Hispanics and new arrivals is complicated (at best). What I do have a problem with is that it almost seems like the press is playing into Pearce's hands here by agreeing with his notion that Pearce is only being derided as a racist only for his position on illegal immigration. Yes, a large part of the opposition to Pearce is about immigration. But, there are plenty of people in the legislature who share his views on immigration but are not undergoing the firestorm he is. Why is that? Well, his public and private statements lead some to believe that his views don't come entirely from just some notion about securing the borders and protecting jobs. When he casually throws around words like "wetback" and forwards white supremacist emails to supporters, it really makes people like me wonder if this is about race rather than the law. Having a couple of Hispanic friends for convienience's sake doesn't convince me otherwise. His problems are also a matter of his own style. His heavy handed, bombastic manner with which he ran the appropriations committee last session was so bad that it was difficult for House leaders to find enough of Pearce's fellow Republicans to serve on the committee with him. That has nothing to do with folks attacking him for his stance on immigration, no matter how much he tries to say otherwise.|W|P|116681392583138768|W|P|Some of Pearce's Best Friends...|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/25/2006 01:20:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|OK, time to answer this by mentioning my own family.

My ancestors on my father's side include a guy who was a ship's chandler in Southampton and rented the Mayflower to the Pilgrims (bad deal, they didn't return the ship, in fact they later made a barn out of it). He himself came over ten years later, in 1630. My favorite cousin (who is on my father's side so she has the same ancestor) is married to a man from Latin America (he is a legal resident). Her kids (my kids' second cousins) are native-born U.S. citizens and the eldest will register to vote next year when she turns 18. My cousin's husband has family back home (who they go to visit every year or two), family in America (I don't know if they are all here legally or not, in fact I have no interest in knowing that though I'm sure she would tell me if I asked) and family planning to come (who will be here legally if there is way they can be).

What I have learned from this is that it is about la familia. Conservatives often make the mistake of supposing that there is one group of Hispanics who are Americans and another who are Latin Americans and that they are two seperate groups. So they are surprised at the negative reaction they get when they propose idiotic solutions like building a wall on the border or making being here without documents a felony with a prison term attached to it. But to me it is not surprising. When you start messing with someone's family, you've lost their vote. I am sure there are many families that include both family members who are U.S. citizens who are voters and family members who are either here illegally or who at least would be hurt by some of these laws.12/22/2006 07:48:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Greg Patterson flatters me too much over at Espresso Pundit by saying that newly elected congressman Gabrielle Giffords should hire me at her office. Well, thank you for the sentiment, Greg, but there are plenty of very well qualified people in line in front of me. In fact, there has been a development on that point. I had heard about this days ago, but I was going to keep quiet about it. Patterson posted it on his blog, so what the heck. Scooped on Tucson political news by Greg Patterson? Will the humilation ever stop? Giffords will be hiring C. J. Karamargin to handle the press for her. An excellent choice, since Karamargin was a political writer at the Star for years. He left the star at the beginning of the political season to write about food for the Citizen. While at the Star, Karamargin developed a good relationship with press staffer, Natalie Luna. Karamargin also has a great deal of respect for Grijalva. One of the amusing back stories over Grijalva's reign in congress has been how many press staffers office has gone through, which led some of us to speculate that this is because he all of a sudden did not have the near monopoly of the press that he had before and was a bit frustrated. My point here is that with two members that both have strong press operations, it would be easy for there to be conflict between the two offices. Between Karamargin and Luna, I don't see that there would be anything except maybe a friendly rivalry. These two people out there flying the flag for their offices can only be a good thing for the Democratic party in Southern Arizona. I recieved an e-mail from a reader complaining that Karamargin is still getting stories printed in the Citizen, and this is an unseemly conflict of interest. I disagree. If Karamargin was still writing about politics, I could see the point. I can't see where Karamargin writing about the wonders of the Christmas tamal creates a conflict of interest on the level of say, writing a dismissive article about charges against a congressman then going off to work for that congressman's lawyer's publicity firm. I can't think off hand of anyone that has done that... NB - A fella from Phoenix wrote me last week and asked about Karamargin, and I said, "naw." The next day, someone told me that he was being considered. What the heck do I know?|W|P|116680061682376614|W|P|Geez, Greg, Are You Trying to Get Me Into Trouble?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/20/2006 11:02:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was alerted to this one by Talking Points Memo; it is so beautiful that it needs repeating. This picture is from Rudy Giuliani's website. Flags are flying both to the right, and to the left...hmm. It just depends which way the wind blows. Maybe can borrow the picture too. Also interesting, his campaign bio omits any mention of Andrew and Caroline, his two children with former wife and occasional Law and Order guest star Donna Hannover. Given Andrew's behavior at his first inauguration, I can totally understand.|W|P|116663851267378262|W|P|Some Things Are Just Beyond Parody|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/20/2006 08:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|ah yes their two top candidates:

one is hated because of the rumors of his adopted child and the fact that he calls himself a "Goldwater Republican" aka, someone who hates the religious right as much as Democrats do or

two, a man who divorced, cheated and apparently doesn't exactly talk to his younger son Andrew anymore.

Ahh yes, I can see those southerners jumping for joy.12/19/2006 05:46:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Lisa James, the designated "establishment" candidate for State Republican Party Chair, has reserved a domain name for a campaign website. The address is lajamesgop.com. There is nothing there right now, but I'm pretty sure there will be soon. One of the knocks against her over at Sonoran Alliance is the allegation of some shenanigans about how she got elected to the State Committee. I've heard nothing about this since they first posted the accusation, but if there is anything to it, I'm sure that Randy Pullen's partisans will bring it forward over the next few weeks. In return, look for James's supporters to allege that Pullen's hot button conservative positions coincided with his wanting higher office. This will be fun.|W|P|116657609310605187|W|P|Keep Those Web Eyes Peeled|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/30/2006 11:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|lajamesgop.com is now active. And wingnuts are scolded by the James camp:

http://www.lajamesgop.com/press/20061205_thinkright.htm

"For those of you out there in conspiracy land, take the aluminum foil off of your head.Things are not being scripted by the underworld."

That should make Lisa a lot of friends among grassroots Republicans. I thought she was a PR expert. Sheesh!12/19/2006 11:04:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The latest out of Central Avenue is that David Waid has informed folks that he plans to run for re-election for chair of the Arizona Democratic Party.|W|P|116655160695738902|W|P|Breaking News: Waid to Run|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/19/2006 01:03:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Can it properly be called "re-election" since he was appointed, not elected, in the first place?

Any word on his chances?12/19/2006 01:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|David Waid was elected by the full state committee back in the Spring. Often, a vice chair can act as a temporary party chair, but full time chairs must be elected.12/19/2006 02:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger BRYAN|W|P|This is a stab to most progressives with in the state committee. He promised AzDPC he would not seek re-election in January, if we backed him last spring. There was a lot of concern about him holding two major roles within the party. I remember him in a closed meeting look many of us right in the face and say just that. Another fine example of the party saying one thing, and doing another, hope he knows he just burnt his olive branch with the progressives. I honestly didn't expect him to keep the promise, but many progressives blindly accepted this promise.12/19/2006 02:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|Bryan, would you consider Randy Camacho? Raul Grijalva is backing him.12/19/2006 03:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger BRYAN|W|P|Most definitely, I am already looking at him. Great Candidate!12/19/2006 05:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I'm not sure yet.

I do think that Waid did a good job this year, leading the state party to a pickup of two U.S. House seats and six legislative seats. At the same time, Bryan's comment is disheartening (though I was not there so I don't know exactly what was said and would want to know what Waid's take on it was.)

On the other hand, I've always been impressed with Randy Camacho, through his two runs for Congress, as a guy who works hard and doesn't quit.

So to be honest, I'm one of those fence-sitters on this one. I'm loathe to fire a guy who was successful, but I've always liked Randy Camacho.12/19/2006 05:34:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I haven't heard from him recently, but Tucson's Mark Osterloh of Clean Elections and Health Care Arizona fame had also been talking about running. Jeff Latas decided not to run for chair, but to run for a vice chair slot. He and Randy both campaigned before the caucus in December.

Randy seemed nice enough, and we down here in Tucson don't know him at all (I had never heard of him and neither had anyone I talked to). In his talk he mostly told about elected officals who support him and did not seem to have the vision for building the party from the grassroots up that we were hoping for.

The rumor down here in Tucson is that David Waid would run and then give the spot to Fred Duval who can't run because he isn't a PC.

David did promise he would not run again, both in a private meeting in his office with AZDPC leadership, and in a public caucus meeting with over 100 people. We were meeting with him because there was a great deal of anger amongst the rank and file that the ED and SC jobs were being merged. He said he only wanted to stay through the campaign, because Janet had asked him not to bring in new leadershp in the middle of the campaign, and he absolutely would promise not to run in January. He talked about having small children at home and definitely wanting out at the end of the campoaign.

If we are going to pay a state chair David's kind of salary, we ought to let it be known welll before having this election - and the interest in the job might pick up considerably.There are a lot of well qualified people who can't afford to take the job.

He did a great job as ED, it is true, but he told me earlier this month he wants to open a private political consulting business, if he were to leave the ED post. I think it would be a conflict of interest to do start that business while running the Democratic party.12/19/2006 07:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|One correction Gerry: waid is not going to be a paid Chair apparently. He would take the position as chair as an interim until Duvall or someone else takes over, but an ED would still be hired and that position would be hired. Word from 2910 N Central Ave is that waid is taking a paying position in the private sector and would be like Pederson, a volunteer chair.12/19/2006 07:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|I love Randy as much as anyone but Randy is a push-over. I'm sorry, he's too nice for politics.12/20/2006 12:57:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|As far as I'm concerned there is no race for Chair, David Wade is a shoe-in. Few people know that Mr. Wade was brought in by his New York college buddy Noah Kroloff, who is Janet's right hand man.

The real question is, will the E.D. make the same 100k salary that Wade made?12/20/2006 09:20:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Waid did promise not to run, and in private talks he has stated his desire to return to New York. I suppose he could 'promise' to complete his term if elected, but based on past experience .... (get the K-Y ready)

Waid's leadership was less than 'the perfect storm' it's being promoted as by supplicants. Renzi could have been knocked out with a little effort and response to the Renzi/RNC propaganda lies aired. Six legislative seats is hardly a triumph with Janet rolling up 65% of the vote - no coattails whatsoever. Coordinated campaign was dismal, as usual, quite evident for anyone visiting 2910 after elections, much down ballot material not distributed remained afterwards. 2910 has been at best marginally functional - staff is a mess.

Nice honest guys finish last? What's up with Randy being a push-over? What's that based on: his teaching career? He ran two campaigns for Congress without a sliver of Party help, hardly the basis for a push-over determination.

Without forward home-based leadership of the state party, Arizona is destine to remain the backwater perserve of DC cabalists.

Do we really want a strawman for Chair that will turnover the leadership to an unelected person that does not even share the Democratic principles of the Party in running in his own District for PC?

This chair election could well fracture the state Party.12/20/2006 09:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|Ugh,

azdemocrat2008- might not want to mention the fact that he's from the east coast and that he's responsible for Janet's hatchet man in chief or a taller version of Mario Diaz- Noah.

Janet basically conceded the U.S Senate seat to the Republicans by refusing to help out Jim Pederson, so she's not too popular among some progressive circles.12/20/2006 11:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|How can Jeff Latas or any man run for Vice Chair if the state Chair is a man (since no women are running, it is presumed)? I thought the rules were that if one position is one gender, the next highest position has to be the opposite gender?

Waid didn’t "lead the party to the pickup...". I can't speak for Mitchell but he didn't do anything spectacular for anyone else in the general. The main role is to fundraise and secondarily to help the state county parties to organize. He was marginal at best. SnowBrdr is right on.

I think the state party has done a poor job all around. We should have had a much larger Democratic turnout this cycle and the numbers were disappointing. There was a lack of an education campaign on propositions so a lot of horrible ones passed. Many candidates got little to know support and lost races they could have won. The Democrats in this state are weak.

For the progressives out there--you are dreaming if you think the established old farts in the state party give a pooh about you. Until you become really organized and large in numbers i.e. a force to contend with, you are just a slight aggravation to them...nothing more. Jeff Latas would do better to forget about the Chair or Vice Chair and focus on building that new group he heads into a powerful force. Either way he needs to prove his fundraising ability, which he hasn't yet. He needs to prove his organizational ability, which he hasn’t yet. Jeff has given good stump speeches; now he has a chance to prove if there is any substance to him.

Waid is part of what is wrong with the party. You should never have a SC and ED in one, and he sucked at both jobs. Since your standards are so low, you probably disagree. If you ever have the advantage of living in states that are organized, you would know what I mean. Waid is about protecting and keeping the status quo. Good luck with that folks. He wants to open a private consulting firm, lol. How fitting. Maybe he can tell Jim Pederson wtf went wrong in his campaign. I could answer that and could have saved him $15 million.12/20/2006 11:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Sandy in Prescott, take a reality pill. You sound like a Pederson plant. Janet did not lose the race for Pederson, he lost it. He was a crappy candidate with a shady past who ran horrible ads and didn’t target voters properly.

If you can’t win with spending $15 million and being best buds with Bill Clinton, there is seriously something wrong with you. I know a lot of Democrats who did not vote for Pederson and would not vote for him even if Jesus campaigned for him. Pederson did not respond well to the bankruptcy thing when Kyl ran the ads, because he was/is guilty as sin. The testimonial from the guy who said Pederson still owed him something like $40,000 was the most damaging to him based on what I have heard.

How can you be worth $100 million and not pay off $40K? That disgusted people. They knew this would come out if he ran. Why didn’t he pay off all his creditors and make it right with everyone in advance? Get your house in order before you run. The perception was Jim P was more corrupt than Kyl so even the Democrats that voted for him did a hold your nose thing. There you go Jimbo. I just saved you the millions in consultant fees you are paying to have the “experts” analyze what went wrong with your campaign.

Don’t blame Janet for that. Janet must be doing something right, she did get an overwhelming majority of the votes when Pederson could not even attack one of the easiest Senators to attack. Janet did not need some dead weight dragging her down.12/20/2006 12:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Speaking of Janet, why is it the Democratic Party in Arizona can’t get a woman to run the show but the Republicans are a lot more open to it? Is the Democratic Party more sexist than the Republican one? Seriously, my girlfriend asks me that all the time and I don't know the answer. It seems it has gotten worse and not better. Why aren’t we seeing any women in the race for party Chair?

Now, Mark Osterloh. Isn’t he the idiot who came up with the million dollars to vote scheme? He should have spent his money working on election fraud issues instead. Why anyone would take this flake seriously, I don’t know. Arizona voters were at least smart enough to vote down that harebrained idea.12/20/2006 12:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Did I wander in to the annual Festivus airing of grievances?

Holy cow! Tedski really hit a nerve.12/20/2006 08:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|Fedup: I guess your right, its just for me, saying "Oh vote for waid cause he brought us Janet's top hatchet man" is not exactly an argument that wins most state committee members I would surmise or saying oh, he's from the east coast, he must know more than the rest of us poor westerners- something many of us natives loathe more than Republicans.

I totally think a woman should be chair!!!

And your right on about that Bankruptsy ad, it was pretty damning and especially when he didn't respond but Janet knows she could have done more, you can see it in her eyes when they were at the last public event together.12/22/2006 11:44:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|David Waid has done a great job as state chair and we'd be lucky to have him again. Randy Camacho just doesn't have it in him. He's a lightweight. And Snowbrdr, the Coordinated Campaign wasn't not "dismal". In past years, they have been. Not this year. Their numbers don't lie. And you should have volunteered more of your time to getting dems elected. You did nothing. I know who you are.12/22/2006 09:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|Um, hardly. The 2004 campaign was by far the best one i've seen. This years was small and tepid at best.

PS. waid is decent, but not great.12/22/2006 09:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|looks like we have trolls Tedski

look at azdemocrat2008 and justiceleague.

both joined in 2006 december.

Looks like the coordinated campaign has so little to do that they need to troll blog on rum romanism and rebellion?

oh thats right, they are still paying their field staff a month and a half after the election and they are doing nothing?12/28/2006 04:46:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|As the actual person who stood up and asked and received from David Waid a public promise that David would not run for re-election in January 2007, I want the record very clear.
David Waid is evidently now saying that the gist of his promise to the Arizona Democratic Progressive Caucus in May 2006 was that in January 2006 he would not hold both the unpaid State Chair job and the paid/employee Executive Director job.
I myself was the person who stood up at that meeting in May 2006 and specifically asked him if he was going to seek to be re-elected in January 2006. I asked for a public promise that he not run.
The question David was asked was most definitely NOT about whether he would hold the two jobs, but whether he would run for re-electoin as State Chair. David Waid gave an unequivocal and clear promise not to seek re-election as State Chair.
I just want the record clear about what he was asked and what he said. David is personally an honest man and I can understand (since his holding the two jobs was one of the concerns about his election in May 2006 -- not the only one, but a main concern expressed by many) that he has now, in his own mind, changed his promise from the actual promise he made into the promise he now wishes he had made.
Violating his promise is not enough, standing alone, to deny David Waid the State Chair, but it would be nice if (a) he admitted the strentgh and clarity of his actual promise, (b) explained why he was breaking that promise, and (c) even apologized or at least contacted the Arizona Democratic Progressive Caucus before he carried through with breaking his promise.
Many progressives in Arizona are not at all surprised by the fact that David has not only ignored his promise to Arizona's progressives, but also acted as if that promise made no difference. After all, David's support does not in any way depend upon Arizona's progressives.
The Powers That Be, from the Governor down through the rich contributors and the supporters of the present way the Coordinated Campaign system works, are David's source of power in this job.
Does anyone believe that David Waid would be a credible candidate for the State Chair if the Governor and the other Powers That Be did not want David as "their man over at the Party"? Does anyone believe that David has any viable power base in the Arizona Democratic Party independent of the Governor's wishes? Of course not.
If David Waid is elected, it will be because the Governor and the other Powers That Be want him as "their man in the Party."
Should he be supported? To answer that question you have to ask yourself whether the Democratic Party needs someone who will do to Israel Torres and Herb Payne what was done to them in the last electon cycle.
Israel Torres was a victory that could have happened, with enough support, resources and effort.
national office -- probably taking over McCain's Senate Seat in 2008 while McCain seeks the presidency -- Arizona will be left in the hands of Jan Brewer -- and it could have been Israel Torres.
But the Governor and the Powers That Be are not all that uncomfortable with the likes of Jan Brewer, so they did not devote the kind of resources, attention and effort to Israel Torres' campaign to make him the Governor's replacement when the Governor goes to Washington!
So the question we need to ask ourselves is whether we need, in the State Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, a man who will answer to people who are not really all that uncomfortable with Jan Brewer as Governor of Arizona.
Steve McClure12/28/2006 05:09:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|(a) I just noticed that I cannot tell the difference between January 2006 (incorrect) and January 2007 (correct) == Oh, well, 64 years old has its effects.
Secondly, I noticed that part of my posting got lost.
I was referring near the end of my comment to the fact that evidently Janet wants to go on to higher office -- during her term, so that Jan Brewer will take over as Governor when she leaves.
Please understand that I fully support Janet Napolitano taking over McCain's seat -- it would increase Democratic stability in the Senate and I think she will make a better Senator than she has a Governor.
I am just appalled by the notion that she is evidently quite comfortable with Jan Brewer taking over as Governor.
I believe that Israel Torres could have beaten Brewer in 2006 (done right, she was an incredibly vulnerable candidate) -- and I believe the reason he did not beat her is because Janet Napolitano was not concerned that Brewer would take over when she left.
That fact alone tells me a whole lot about the Powers That Be who back David Waid for State Chair.
Another note. I notice the fact of David Waid's private assurances and comments in closed meetings made it onto this blog, a fact that does not make me particularly happy since we did not tell David ahead of time that this would occur.
That being said, I was also present at those meetings, and their content was accurately described. In those meetings, it was quite clear that the quid pro quo for Arizona progressives not fighting David's candidacy for State Chair in May 2006 was precisely and explicitly his promise not to seek re-election in January 2007. That was always very clear between us.
When I went up to David prior to the public part of the AZDPC meeting and asked him if he would make the public pledge not to run in January 2007 on the open floor, he specifically suggested that I ask him that question in the AZDPC meeting so that he could make a public pledge. He wanted to "assure" people that he was running for State Chair in May 2006 only to keep the momentum going in the 2006 campaign (i.e., don't change horses in midstream, or whatever metaphor you want), and he wanted to "assure" everyone that he would not run in January 2007.
On the basis of that specific promise, given before that morning and in public in that public meeting that morning, we progressives did not make a floor fight out of David's election to State Chair that afternoon.
That is the record. Again, I like David. I respect what he has done. I have some criticism of his performance in both jobs, but that alone is not, to my mind, enough to deny him re-election.
What is at issue in his election is whether we progressives are once again to be supine and mere supplicants, or are we going to stand up in the Party and say that we want a Party where all Democrats are heard and all are valued and all are supported.
If I were going to get involved in any upcoming fight, and if I had a battle cry (and possibly someone will tell me why this is not a good battle cry), I would say: "Remember Israel Torres!"
If and when the queen of ballot vulnerability becomes Governor, remember what the Coordinated Campaign did to Israel Torres!
Steve McClure12/29/2006 12:38:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I'm curious, Steve; What more could the Coordinated have done for Israel Torres?1/10/2007 10:45:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Point #1

"Israel Torres was a victory that could have happened, with enough support, resources and effort... ?"

I know I was on the other side of the world but even I could see that Issie [although a great candidate] was not going to pull it out. The only thing Issie had going for him was a backlash of voters against the GOP this yr, which would hardly translate to votes in the SOS slot.

There was a more realistic chance for Chris Cummiskey to win, running for an open seat and the 2002 Coordinated effort to include extensive resources put into the SOS race. Both (D) SOS Candidates had the same problem, a Janet Napolitano who drew out moderate GOP women which translated into votes for Jan Brewer, not knowing that Jan is anything but moderate and since most people dont pay attn or care about the SOS, they voted for Brewer.


Point #2
"the fact that evidently Janet wants to go on to higher office -- during her term, so that Jan Brewer will take over as Governor when she leaves. Please understand that I fully support Janet Napolitano taking over McCain's seat -- it would increase Democratic stability in the Senate and I think she will make a better Senator than she has a Governor.
I am just appalled by the notion that she is evidently quite comfortable with Jan Brewer taking over as Governor."

1st, should Senator McCain leave his Senate post - does the Governor have to appoint someone from his/her same party [similiar to state/local candidates] to take his place? If that was the case, should would not qualify for the position, thus debunking this conspiracy theory.
However if she was able to appoint herself, why in the heck would she put Arizona in that position when she could appoint someone else, making a deal with this particular individual, only serve out the term and not run for re-election - giving her an opportunity to run for an open seat.

Sceniro #1: GOP Replacement... Grant Woods, Jane Dee Hull, something along those lines
Sceniro #2: Dm Replacement... Jim Pederson, Fred Duvall, something along those lines1/17/2007 10:53:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|JusticeLeague, obviously you know very little, and you certainly do not know me. The comment that I did nothing during the past election cycle is so far from factual to be as moronic and cartoonish as your 'handle'.

You can try to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, but only a Party supplicant will believe it. The 2006 Coordinated campaign was dismal. The Governor's impressive win was overshadowed by the lack of any coattails - a serious lack of coordination by any standards.

JusticeLeague stick with your comics, reality may be a bit of a reach.12/19/2006 07:30:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Apparently, the Arizona Capitol Times has named Espresso Pundit as the best political website. Oh yeah? Well, uh, I never liked you guys much anyway. I'll just go hide over here.|W|P|116653894610310709|W|P|Uvas Agrias|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/19/2006 10:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger union guy|W|P|Ted,

Don't know if this helps, but it's the people down at the capitol that vote for the best of... And we know that most of them have a different political persuasion then you do.12/19/2006 11:01:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Clearly the best AZ political blogs are from the political heart of Arizona -- Tucson.

More Phoenix bias. :>)12/19/2006 12:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I don't think that would help, union guy. They also managed to vote for NPR as best talk radio. Go figure.

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it anyhow. These are the same people that voted for The Cheesecake Factory as the best dessert at the capitol. This is a restaurant that is about 9 miles away from the aforementioned seat of government.
WTF?12/19/2006 02:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|The guys at Cap Times specialize in rounding up the usual suspects and presenting the Conventional Wisdowm to lobbyists and bureaucrats.

I read several blogs a day, and Tedski's is hands-down the best of the bunch.12/20/2006 08:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|I get the shakes when I cannot read your blog Ted12/19/2006 06:38:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I wanted to write a bit about my take on the Democratic presidential field. I started writing and realized that I was taking up way too much space. I was trying to avoid missing out on someone and having one of you post angrilly about my missing, I dunno, Dennis Kucinich or . So, I will say that this is the first in a series. If I miss your fave, then either I will write about him or her later, or they will just drop out after realizing that no one has heard of them. The punditocracy has already declared this a two person race: v . Nice of them to whittle down the field before most of the primary schedule has even been set. Someone yesterday accused me of indulging in "Obamamania." Well, the guy has been in the news just a wee bit lately, maybe y'all have noticed? I like the idea of his running, but I am not totally down with his candidacy yet. The only danger I see is that the media infatuation will stop. I can see already see the stories round about March or April of next year talking about "Obama Fatigue." Whether or not most people have even heard of him yet, the media will decide that they are tired of him and thus, the country must be too. Obama's first test is whether or not he can keep the hype going, or make sure it is revived in time for the opening of the primaries in 2008. Also, just as I am not totally down with Obama, I'm not totally down on Clinton. The new spin from some of her boosters is that Republicans have been throwing all the've got at the woman for nearly a decade and a half, but she still manages to get elected (even in Republican areas of New York) and her national poll numbers are strong. I see their point. The number that is always pointed to by detractors is that one poll or another shows that forty percent or so of voters would never vote for her. Yeah, doesn't sound great, but I'd like to see how many of them would be willing to vote for any Democrat. Gleeful Republicans have been declaring her general election candidacy dead on arrival, and many of the folks that Calvin Trillin so eloquently calls "Sabbath Gasbags" seem to agree with this. The knock is that she may excite a large part of the Democratic primary electorate, but that she turns off most voters. Most polling shows that she actually could go toe to toe with most Republican candidates (except for media darling ), so this isn't borne out by real data, mostly just the establishment media's dislike of the woman. I was a wee lad at the time, but weren't Democrats and Washington media types similarly dismissive of a certain Governor of California in the run up to 1980? I'll get to the other candidates later. UPDATE: I may have spoken too soon, there apparently are polls showing Clinton beating McCain.|W|P|116653841375441892|W|P|2008 Candidates, First in a Series|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/19/2006 10:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|The possibility of either Hillary Clinton or John McCain being the next president is enough to make me cry out in despair. I would imagine that everyone in the Mideast feels pretty much the same way.

I think that the only person who can save us from Hillary is Al Gore. He's the only Democrat who could even come close to being able to compete with her fundraising and campaigning capabilities. I think that either Barack Obama or General Wesley Clark would be outstanding to share the ticket with Gore as the vice presidential candidate. If Barack Obama were the vice president for eight years, he would have a good shot at running for president and he would still be young enough.12/19/2006 10:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Correction. I should say that every person in the Mideast who is not an Israeli probably feels the same as I do about Hillary and John.12/20/2006 09:43:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Obama and Clinton both support occupying Iraq for a long time. I would campaign actively against either one of them as would everyone I know, despite the fact it would be wonderful to elect a woman or a black man, that can't be all they have going for them.12/20/2006 08:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|all i have to say is :

"Look, no strings"


god love Dennis Kucinich12/18/2006 08:47:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I haven't written about SEIU's organizing efforts among Pima County workers in a while. Back in late October, Attorney General Terry Goddard issued an opinion that county workers were entitled to a vote on "meet and confer" status. Goddard's opinion all but overruled a self-interested opinion issued by Barbara LaWall's office (many of her own dissatisfied workers want SEIU representation). LaWall has relented, and a Board of Supervisors vote is scheduled tommorrow to place an item on the January 9th agenda authorizing county employees to vote on representation by a union. Tommorrow's motion has, in all likelyhood, four votes: those of the three Democrats plus Republican Ray Carroll. This vote is the best of all possible worlds for Carroll: it is his chance to do the right thing, and his chance to take a shot at County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry. Huckleberry is opposed to any union, but got to where he is at because he knows how to count to three (which, as we have all learned from former Supervisor Dan Eckstrom, is the most important skill in Pima County politics). He sees that the writing is on the wall here, and will grudgingly accept that county workers will organize. However, observers wonder what sort of language he will try to slip into the enabling ordinance. Those details aside, this is great news for the labor movement.|W|P|116650043206981123|W|P|SEIU Update|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/18/2006 11:28:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Okay, I'll relent a bit. I'll cut Time a break for their lame "You are the Person of the Year" thing. Why? For linguistic reasons. In English, we make no distinction of singular or plural "yous," except in regionalisms (y'all, youse). So, I don't know exactly which "you" they are refering to. This would be so much easier in Spanish or Polish. I also don't know if this is familiar or formal. Since we ditched the "thou" (along with its plural, "ye"), I can't tell if Time is respecting me (or us, for that matter) or putting me down. It could be none of these; it could even be the eliptical you. I'll go ahead and reserve judgement until all of this gets cleared up.|W|P|116646695675441435|W|P|A Reconsideration|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/18/2006 12:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|And the reason we're Person of the Year -- MySpace and YouTube.

I am frightened and confused.12/18/2006 03:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger azwildcat88|W|P|Jane, the whole reason behind the YOU bit goes beyond YOUTUBE and MYSPACE, but includes Web 2.0, such as Wikis, blogs, et al. It represents the involvement and the impact that the individual has on news, communication. These things are changing how we learn , communicate, and get our news. They are not saying that it is all for the better, Time is just acknowledging the reality of it.

Time has honored controversial figures before, and this is no different12/18/2006 07:59:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Wow, wildcat. Our synapses have some common threads.

Web 2.0 is a big deal. In fact, I don't think "we" or You even get it yet. As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating."

My daughter will not grant me access to her Facebook material. Yes, Jane, frightening.12/18/2006 09:56:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr has announced that he has quit the Republican party and joined the Libertarian party. Barr has been a vocal administration critic on matters of privacy and a critic of the outgoing congressoinal majority. He is no liberal, however. His show has featured interviews with Ann Coulter and his website lavishes praise on John Bolton. He was also one of the main figures in the Monica-Whitewater witch hunt. Does this augur for anything more substantial? Possibly, but probably not so much a mass defection of small "l" libertarians becoming big "L" ones. The last former congressman that I can remember that bolted to the Libertarians was a one-term Texas congressman, . Paul later got the Libertarian nomination for president in 1988. Paul was again elected to congress in 1996...as a Republican.|W|P|116646164935480722|W|P|Bob Barr Bolts|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/18/2006 12:57:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I find Barr's becoming a big-"L" rather curious. If memory serves, besides being a House Impeachment Manager, he was also the architect behind the federal Defense of Marriage Act. How does he reconcile his newfound belief in government not interfering in the personal lives of citizens with his track record of doing just that?12/17/2006 12:13:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Okay, is this the lamest "Person of the Year" ever? This is even lamer than the 1966 "Man of the Year" given to the boomers (Gawd, don't even get me started). Wow, could these guys be more lazy? Heaven forbid they choose an acutal mover and shaker, a newsmaker. God knows, nothing happened this year, right? I have the right to gripe about this, after all, I am a man of the year.|W|P|116638321727113434|W|P|What a Cop Out|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/17/2006 12:49:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|That is lame...Asking the media to have a spine is not working.12/17/2006 02:06:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Well, Tedski, here is an area where we see things completely differently.

I really liked the article and just posted my own story about it using the same picture you posted.

I think "Web 2.0" is a huge historical development. Granted, maybe discussing Web 2.0 through their person of the year is a cop out.

Just curious, if you were picking person of the year, who would you pick? Hmmm. Right now, quite frankly, I'm not particularly fond of anyone.12/17/2006 03:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I'm not going to pick a person of the year...I'm going to leave that to...well...

You.12/17/2006 06:04:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|HA! HA! HuWaaaagh!!

That's great!!

Actually, You did select of the Word of the Year for 2006: Truthiness.

Maybe next year, You will indeed select the Person of the Year.

Hmmm. What do you think? Will You choose You????12/17/2006 06:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|The choice for Tedski is painfully obvious - GABRIELLE GIFFORDS.12/17/2006 06:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Just the sound of that name makes Ted go:

fap, fap, fap, fap

I'm really surprised that Ted didn't get a post with her office. I'm serious.12/17/2006 08:11:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|To be honest, what did Gabby do that was extraordinary and completely unexpected?

Now the Freshman Class of Congresscritters...Or maybe George Allan for screwing up sooooooooooo amazingly!

A national laugh would be good.12/18/2006 06:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|I think that "George Tuttle" should be Time's Man of the Year.12/18/2006 02:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Make that PERSON of the year.12/18/2006 07:49:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Good catch, Liza.

And Tom is a politician! He should know better!

It's us bitterly divorced cigar smoking scotch drinking fellas that can say "Man of the Year."

Heard through the grapevine that she finally sold the house x4mr bought for her.

I miss those dogs, especially Lucky, the one I picked out.12/18/2006 09:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Tom,
Nope, won't take the "Man of the Year" award. I'm simply too humble for that, not the type to toot my own horn.

Good luck up in the Valley of the Smog next session. How in the heck does Charlene Pesquira rate a front row seat in the State Senate? Perhaps they know she is keeping it warm?12/20/2006 10:03:00 AM|W|P|Blogger mrmaps|W|P|IMHO, the Persons of the year were George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfield. The caption, "Axis of Failure."12/20/2006 03:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|mrmaps,
Should have been "asses of failure."12/16/2006 07:47:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|From office:
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva will host a Holiday Open House and Toy Drive at his Tucson office, 810 East 22nd Street, on Wednesday, December 20th from 5:30pm - 7:00pm. During the open house, there will also be a toy drive for the families of the International Association of Machinists Local 933, who remain on strike against Raytheon Missile Systems.
|W|P|116628058937594208|W|P|Grijalva Open House and Toy Drive|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/16/2006 07:40:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, I was reading that and a bi-partisan group of US House members is in Cuba this weekend. They hope to be able to meet with Raúl Castro. Raúl Castro? Wouldn't it be easier for Flake to get into his car and drive south? I mean, Raúl Castro is practicing law in Nogales these days.|W|P|116628031914394591|W|P|Seems Like a Long Way to Go|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/15/2006 06:24:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of the e-mails I recieved after my post about the hoo-hah the Democrats are trying to raise about the partisan breakdown of committees pointed out to me that back in the 1960's, when the Democrats had control of both houses of the legislature, that some committees had a 12-3 partisan make up. Well, that makes everything okay then. I am not sure how many committees had that sort of membership, since it would have been hard to maintain too many fifteen member committees in the 80 member house of the period. So, I'm not sure how many committees were that lopsided. Aside from that though...that was over forty years ago, before a significant number of current legislators were even born. Geez, you have to go back that far to pin some outrage on the Democrats? No matter, I put my crack research team to work to find out the partisan make-up of the Democratic-majority legislatures of the 1960's. Here is what they found: 24th Legislature (1959-1960):
  • Senate: 27 Democrats, 1 Republican
  • House: 55 Democrats, 25 Republicans
25th Legislature (1961-1962):
  • Senate: 24 Democrats, 4 Republicans
  • House: 52 Democrats, 28 Republicans
26th Legislature (1963-1964):
  • Senate: 24 Democrats, 4 Republicans
  • House: 48 Democrats, 32 Republicans
27th Legislature (1965-1966):
  • Senate: 26 Democrats, 2 Republicans
  • House: 45 Democrats, 35 Republicans
So, it looks like through part of this period, there may have been lopsided make-up of committees because, well, the legislature was lopsided. The House with the closest partisan split was in the 27th Legislature, which occurred during the administration of Democrat Sam Goddard. That House was actually run by a coalition of conservative "Pinto Democrats" and Republicans, with power (presumably including the power to make committee assignments) split between Democratic Speaker Andrew Jackson "Jack" Gilbert of Cochise County and Republican Majority Leader John Haugh of Pima County. This was the epitome of the "copper collar" legislatures of the period, and gave Goddard no end of grief during his too brief administration. It would be interesting to see if those 12-3 committees were in that legislature. The 1966 election was dominated by a scandal involving the state liquor department and also was the first conducted electing legislators by districts rather than at-large by county. This brought an end to the domination of both houses by rural Democrats, and brought an end to sustained Democratic control in either house.|W|P|116623456375893112|W|P|Legislative Republicans: Still Bitter at Tay Cook, Apparently|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/15/2006 11:15:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Phoenix Buisiness Journal ran an article this morning where Russell Pearce takes on folks who have been critical of his behavior and public statements. Pearce is quoted as saying:
These are anarchists who continue to attack me because of my sincere effort to secure our borders, enforce our laws and I put God, country and family first.
Anarchists? Exacly what decade is this guy living in? Didn't all that die with Emma Goldman? Or maybe Sid Vicious? Maybe he's right. Sometimes, when they don't know I'm listening, I hear Pearce's detractors plotting the assasination of King Umberto and William McKinley.|W|P|116620729824919480|W|P|He Says That Because I Don't Know What I Want, But I Know How To Get It|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/15/2006 06:23:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I spoke to a Republican activist up in Phoenix and he seemed to feel that Lisa James had some momentum in the chairmanship race. His take: despite whatever problems the activists have with the consultants and the hierarchy, Randy Pullen is being seen in some quarters as someone who is looking at the chairmanship as a stepping stone to something else rather than someone who wants to build the party. Also, the more pragmatic activists are wondering if the "RINO-Hunting" direction that Pullen's supporters are promising is a winning strategy. I have my doubts. The only hard evidence I have to go on (for obvious reasons, I have nothing resembling a hard-count of Republican State Committee voters) was the District 11 race up in Phoenix, which was seen by Pullen supporters as a proxy war between them and the Republican establishment. Rob Haney, a Pullen supporter, won that race overwhelmingly. (Another upshot of that race: Haney has a great deal of control over his district's proxies. Unlike in the Democratic party, Maricopa and Pima County district chairs can get away with carrying as many proxies as they wish at state meetings.) I suppose it is possible that the state committee members in that District are an outlier, or that they resented the ham-fisted pressure from folks like and took it out on his candidate. On the Democratic side, there still hasn't been official word from David Waid about whether or not he will run again. Given this race is a less public affair, he can probably wait a couple of weeks to say either way. The talk is that Janet Napolitano's operatives would like him to stay, but there is some grumbling about his leadership from Democratic Cardinals. Napolitano's folks are definitely not fans of the two announced alternatives, Jeff Latas and Randy Camacho. There are other names being floated as alternatives, but far be it from me to engage in rumor and innuendo.|W|P|116619077471383957|W|P|I Knew a Guy Once That Had a Cat Named Chairman|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/15/2006 09:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger T. Stephen Cody|W|P|Hi Ted. Latas is not running for AZ DEM party state chair. I have emails to the Sonoran PDA list to document that fact.12/15/2006 10:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Okay...news to me. Last conversation I had with him it sounded like a go.12/15/2006 02:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|yeah, the republic is saying it's Camacho versus Osterloh.12/16/2006 08:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Go with Osterloh!12/14/2006 11:46:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Yesterday, some politicians and community organizations held a press conference to ask House Speaker Jim Weiers to reconsider his decision to allow Russell Pearce to continue as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. The Republic ran a piece on the press conference this morning, and it included a quote from Barrett Marson, spokesman for Speaker Weiers.
The speaker is going to do the right thing and stick with the person who shepherded through two compromise budgets.
I find this interesting because the budgets that were actually passed and signed by Governor Napolitano were negotiated by House and Senate leadership and the Governor. The "compromise budgets" (passed without any Democratic votes, so how much of a compromise were they?) that made it through Pearce's committee were vetoed. So, what did Pearce, with all of his bluster, actually accomplish? And why is he being rewarded for it?|W|P|116612260244386361|W|P|Sound and Fury...Signifying Not Much At All, Really|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/14/2006 07:23:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A couple of days ago, the Arizona Daily Star removed comments from some stories. The move was controversial, as shown by the 232 comments posted to the story about the comment removal. Star Executive Editor Bobbie Jo Buel said a few days ago that there may be restrictions placed on comments in the future. Looking at the comments that have been placed this week, either there have been restrictions, or the more virtiolic posters have caught on and moved on to another hobby. I've been talking to a couple of folks about this move. There was widespread dissatisfaction with the comments section in the Star's newsroom. The most amazing phenomenon was that any story, any story, would get twisted to be the fault of an illegal immigrant. The moment this happened, the "discussion" in the comments would turn useless. A crime story, particularly if the perpetrator was identified with a Latino name (actual legal status was unimportant), would be further proof that these illegal aliens were criminals. If a Hispanic was the victim of a ctime, than they obviously deserved it because they shouldn't have been here. If there was a story about problems in the schools, then it was becuase of the illegal aliens that were getting educated. If TEP needed a rate hike, them darned illegals are leaving their lights on. Heck, if the Wildcats lose a game...it's the illegal aliens causing those incompleted passes. Particularly disturbing to some reporters was that even a Hispanic name on the byline would lead to a chorus of racial epithets and questioning of citizenship. I can see the reporter's gripe, if your boss invited people into your workplace to shout racial epithets at you every day, that would constitute a "hostile work environment," wouldn't it? The comments would often become a food fight and it was less and less likely to find anything enlightening in there. As the discussions deteriorated, folks that had anything serious or thoughtful to say would get turned off and simply wouldn't post. Any story about , for example, would lead to snide comments about his sexuality. For all of the griping from people about "open discussion" and "letting the people's voice be heard," it is hard to see how calling a congressman "Tail Banger Jim" contributes to the conversation or helps people understand the news. It would be easy to dismiss this as Star reporters griping that people were responding to their stories, but the dislike of the comment section was more widespread than that. One Tucson Weekly reader suggested naming the users of the Star's comment section to the annual "Get Out of Town" list. One former journalist I talked to said he did actually find the comments helpful, particularly on buisiness and consumer stories. In the work he does now, it was helpful to read the unsolicited, unmonitored comments to see how people really felt about local buisinesses and their treatment of customers. This may be true on some stories, but it seems that on many stories finding thoughtful comments became a "Where's Waldo" exercise. Back at the beginning of the campaign season, I attended a workshop given by the Star and Citizen that was both a pitch for advertising and an outline of their policies regarding letters and guest opinons. They told us about their restrictions on letters to the editor and guest opinion, and then talked about the on-line user comments section. I asked about the user comments, which at that time were already becoming defamatory and even libelous towards certain candidates. Their answer at the time was that people have first amendment rights and they can't do anything about it. Given that this was said minutes after they had talked about the restrictions on letters and guest opinions, I found this answer disingenuous. The fact is, the Star runs the forum, and they can run it how ever the heck they like, they can take it down even. They have first amendment rights too, and don't have to promote opinions that they find offensive. However, they can't expect to have used the first amendment as an excuse to allow their bandwidth to be used for this garbage all these months, and then wonder why users feel that this is a restriction on their first amendment rights when they finally clamp down. I'm interested to see exactly how the Star (and soon, no doubt, the Citizen) decides to handle posters. Will they do what I've seen on Daily Kos and Big Soccer, two internet bulletin boards I use, where users who post defamatory missives get cited and eventually cut off by the users themselves? Such a system isn't perfect (on Big Soccer, I once got "red carded" by a DC United fan merely for joking about a questionable penalty kick in a game that they won), but I think that giving the readers and posters the power to police themselves seems to have worked well on other such sites, and may be a good way for our local papers to handle such things.|W|P|116610870522374553|W|P|Star Comments Sections|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/14/2006 02:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Damn it! All those illegal aliens bitching about us true-blooded Americans exercising our Consstitutional 1st Amendment rights in the Star's comment section is going to get the thing shut down!

Doris! Bring me my gun!12/14/2006 02:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Framer|W|P|Jerks in the comments section is hardly the exclusive domain of consrvatives, spent much time commenting at AZ Congress Watch lately? Its almost 50/50 good to trash with the majority of trash coming from the left. I hate to see that happening to the boutique blogs.

On the other hand, the Star hasn't become the comments section of yahoo news. That is beyond being able to read.12/14/2006 03:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|Censoring the knuckle-dragging racists doesn't solve any problems. They're out there bleaching their bed sheets and shooting up beer cans.

Exposing their racist rants shows the world what's really going on, and how the infamous "Know-Nothing" movement of the early 1900s has resurfaced in the early 21st Century.12/14/2006 03:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Well, yeah, what did you expect? In politics, people treat each other with the perfect portrait of civility and respect, at least when compared to soccer.

And there is no first amendment right that prevents me from deleting your post if I think it's unnecessarily derogatory towards me, towards another poster or towards someone else. The first amendment only allows you the right to write it in the first place, not to have any expectation that it will never be erased.12/14/2006 04:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|I'm not a regular Star reader, but I very much approve of their removing comments from some articles. In fact, they can do us all a favor and eliminate the comments entirely. News is about news, or should be, and editorials and letters to the editor are opinions. I think its fine to open the editorials up to discussion but it makes very little sense to treat news articles the same way. I've only looked at these comments a few times and I was surprised that the Star would provide an online forum for vitriolic morons to have word hemorrages.12/16/2006 08:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Isn't anyone else mystified that these knuckle draggers can actually use a computer?

Scary!12/13/2006 05:06:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A regular reader took issue with some of my points in my post regarding the organization of the House in the upcoming session. First, I didn't make it clear enough that the issue about the third floor offices was a rumor that I had heard. As it turns out, what has actually happened is that despite their being six more Democrats than there were last session, there will only be one new office space opened for them on the third floor. As I said in my post, this is a minor, cosmetic action at best, but symbolic nonetheless. Second, the writer took issue with my characterization of last sessions committes as 5-3. I was mistaken on that. Only one committee was 5-3, the remaining committees were 6-3 or 4-2. The mistake obviously took attention away from my main point: the ratio on the committees should reflect the make-up of the House. The House's 33-27 membership is a heck of a lot better reflected by a 5-4 committee ratio than a 5-3 ratio. I know 'cos I checked it on my slide rule. Interestingly, the 6-3 and 4-2 ratios reflected the 39-21 ratio of the last House fairly accurately. I don't doubt for a minute that when committee memberships were set at the beginning of the last session, they gave that as a justification for the seemingly lopsided committees. The Republicans have been giving some justifications for this. The last time the Democrats had control of the legislature, Senate President Pete Rios set similar committee ratios in that body. It was controversial at the time, but I can't think of a Republican member that was around at the time to have felt aggrieved. Heck, some of them weren't even living in the state at the time. They also are trying to justify it by saying that in an early 1990's legislature when Republicans and Democrats had the exact same 33-27 partisan breakdown, the committees were 5-3 as well. At least in the case of that 1991-93 Senate, the Republicans can argue that the Democrats were unfair to them, so they can say "sauce for the goose" or whatever. However, the second argument basically says, we were unfair to you before, so it is okay to be unfair to you again. Doesn't exactly engender a lot of sympathy.|W|P|116605660302104798|W|P|Department of Corrections Department|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/13/2006 07:09:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|
The best system is to have one party govern and the other party watch. - Speaker Thomas Bracket Reed

It seems that the Republican leadership at the legislature is already being punitive toward Democratic members. There has already been talk that their offices may be moved from the third floor of the capitol, where most of them had offices last session, to a lower floor. Many of them are seeing this as more symbolic of how they will be treated by the majority party rather than anything substantive. Insulting, but it won't effect the job that they do. The more substantive complaint regards the make up of committees. In the last session, committees were 5-3. In this session, where the ratio of the whole house went from 39-21 to 33-27, the ratio will still be 5-3. Incoming Democratic Whip Steve Gallardo has been publicly demanding a 5-4 ratio on the committees, saying that he will "go to war" otherwise. Steve, you know that the Speaker will make sure that any war resolution gets assigned to a committee where it will go down 5-3. Even optimistic Republicans who point to the victory of and some conservative-minded initiatives must, at the very least, say that the results for them were mixed given their loss of legislative seats and the wide margin for Janet Naoplitano and Terry Goddard. Shouldn't the organization of the legislature reflect that? It looks like we are in for an escalation of what we saw last session: ignore the Democratic members, ignore the Governor, pass things that you know will get vetoed, gripe when they get vetoed, then pass them again and be shocked when they get vetoed again. Oh, and when it is all over, blame the Democrats for being either ineffective or obstructionist. And these guys wonder why they didn't get that pay hike?

NB - A reader wrote taking issue with some of my assertions in this post. I addressed these in a subsequent post.|W|P|116602129126291679|W|P|A New Era of Bipartisan Cooperation...Wait, Never Mind|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/12/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I can tell that must be scaring the Republicans, because they have already made a couple of butt-stupid attacks on him over the last couple of weeks. Most of you already heard the one about Obama's middle name being Hussein. So effin' what? Other than the bozo that said it, it doesn't seem to have gotten too far. But, we have, what, six hundred and some odd days to go before the 2008 elections. Anyway, they have a new one: he dresses like the enemy.
But, in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of "GQ" to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable.
Greenfield isn't so much a moron as to accuse Obama of copying Ahmadinejad, but he makes the silly statement that somehow he will remind people of Ahmadinejad because he wears an open collared shirt with no tie. No, Jeff, silly pundits think of Ahmadinejad, actual people will just see a younger-than-average Senator dressing down a bit. Yeah...that no tie thing. It was invented by the Mullahs. No one else big has ever done that. -sigh- Is this the best they can do? Not that I should be helping out the conservatives on anything, but this guy is fairly liberal. Can't you attack him on, I dunno, his record or something? A few weeks ago, Obama was on NPR's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, apologizing to a reporter for ruining this guy's pick up of an intern. You can get the audio of the apology here. Sample line:
I want to apologize publicly for messing up your game.
Perhaps it is this sort of natural easy going way that they are worried about. The guy is young, friendly, attractive. Someone like , Al Gore and Mike Dukakis were cyphers to the American people when they ran. This guy, he's already building up a relationship with people. It's a lot easier to trash an unknown rather that someone people feel like they already know and like. Those of you that know me know that I dislike football. Maybe "dislike" is too mild. Anyway, I did not watch Monday Night Football last night, but Obama was on there making an "important announcement."
|W|P|116597250493239280|W|P|Barack and Roll|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/12/2006 07:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|I like the tieless, open collar and untucked shirt with a suit jacket look. However, Tedski, your male readers should understand that you need a flat stomach to pull this off. If you're overweight, stay with the more forgiving tucked shirt, tie, and jacket. They cover these important issues on TLC's "What Not to Wear." Maybe Jeff Greenfield should tune in.12/13/2006 07:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|What!!?? You dislike futbol??

Gahhhh ... politics is becoming like Xmas-shopping season -- the start dates keep getting earlier. :(12/13/2006 07:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Futbol, fussball, votebal...those are all okay. Football...the kind with the pointy ball...nah.12/12/2006 11:25:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Yellow Sheet, a capitol tip sheet that all the cool insiders read (you know it must be what the cool people read because I don't), has a few items on the ongoing controversey about Russell Pearce's reappointment as head of the appropriations committee. The editors give credit to our own Jim Nintzel (who is cool because he reads this blog) for highlighting not only this appointment but several others made by Jim Weiers in a recent column. The Tucson Citizen ran an editorial on the matter last week, and I also wrote about this as well. The Democratic caucus has scheduled a press conference on this matter tommorrow, and Steve Gallardo was sharply critical of the appointment of the often bombastic, divisive and at best borderline racist Pearce to this important committee. Apparently, according to the Sheet, nitpicking liberals like me and Gallardo aren't the only ones who have trouble with Pearce:
Pearce's antics have been so offensive, a railbird told our reporter yesterday, that House Republican Leaders are having difficulty filling out the Appropriations Committee roster--expected to be between 15 and 18 members--because a number of members are unwilling to sit on a committee he chairs.
Ouch! How bad does it have to be that a legislator won't sit on appropriatons? Isn't that what lawmakers dream of at night?|W|P|116594890883087561|W|P|Pearce Controversey Makes Yellow Sheet|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/12/2006 11:13:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| Today is the day we celebrate the appearance of the Blessed Virgin to a poor young native named Juan Diego at a place called Tepeyac. Many of us see comfort in the story, since She appeared not to the rich or the powerful or the oppressor, but rather the most humble.|W|P|116594762166042331|W|P|El Día de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/12/2006 06:15:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I was going to wait for a transcript to be posted, but it appears it won't be until later today. As some of you know, Boston-based curmudgeon and plagiarist Mike Barnicle has been hosting the show while Chris Matthews does whatever Chris Matthews does when he ain't working. Yesterday, we viewers were told that would be playing "hardball." I guess I misunderstand the word "hardball." I thought "hard" as in, I dunno, difficult, or more intense than say, softball, cricket or jarts. I suppose you can check the transcript yourself when it gets posted this afternoon. The line that stands out most in my mind is when Barnicle told DeLay "You're a teriffic guy." Hey, if Barnicle wants to slather praise on the guy, great. Maybe he likes his politics, but please don't call it "hardball." The impression I get from Barnicle is that he is a bit naïve about politics, too naïve to be doing serious political interviews. At one point he even posited that DeLay would like . Yeah, DeLay and Obama, they hang together. I think they were in a band back in '83. One interesting revelation was about DeLay's new blog. For those that don't know, Mr. DeLay has a blog, and apparently had the comments section open for a total of 75 minutes before he realized that people who don't like him might post. Anyway, DeLay went through the normal, this is the way to get out of the beltway (of course, he's moved to the DC suburbs permanently now) and get with the real people, yadda yadda yadda. Then he admitted that he doesn't actually write the thing. Okay, it's a blog...but he doesn't write it, and he doesn't take comments. Dude, that ain't a blog, that's a press release. NB - Someone named James J. Risser managed to mirror the site before the comments were taken down. The best post was from a guy named Marc:
Everyone already assumes bloggers are unemployed losers... thanks for reinforcing that stereotype...
|W|P|116593149351550539|W|P|Barnicle and DeLay Play Wiffleball|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/12/2006 07:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|If bloggers are unemployed losers, what does that make those of us who read blogs and post comments at them?12/12/2006 10:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|Hey, Jarts is not for sissies. People have actually been killed playing Jarts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_darts12/12/2006 02:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|sirocco,
I think it makes us a sort of cult following to unemployed losers.12/13/2006 12:09:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Jarts? Why are they called jarts or do I have to actually copy and paste the link you have not learned to html yet?12/11/2006 07:30:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Many of us have seen and read the statements from various members of the right-wing communitariat condemning the Iraq Study Group report and calling its members, who include such well known flower-power lefties as Alan Simpson and Edwin Meese, "surrender monkeys" and deriding their recommendations as "cut and run." Well, ISG skeptics may be comforted by some suprising words of support:
This report doesn't meet our needs, because it was written by people from outside, people who live in a normal environment, not this environment.
Hmm. Who said that? One of our generals? Maybe a freedom loving Iraqi leader? Nope...it was from a spokesman for Muqtada al-Sadr. (I didn't mess up the quote this time, you can find it here.) So, for the last few years, war opponents, heck, anyone that opposed even the tiniest part of administration policy, was compared to Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein. How do the "stay the course" talkmeisters like being lumped in with al-Sadr?|W|P|116584838465881454|W|P|ISG Opponents Find New Ally|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/11/2006 12:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|What is significant about the quote from Abu Mojtaba, spokesman for the Sadrist movement, is the statement that follows:

"His group is resistant to any change that might loosen Shiite control of the government."

This is not about siding with those who wish to "stay the course" or those who want to continue to occupy Iraq until the oil has been used up.12/11/2006 12:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Liza-

I realize that...just as those of us who were opponents of the war were not for a continuation of Saddam Hussein's regime.

It gives me a chance to do to them what they have done to us the last couple of years, why let nuance and fact spoil it?12/11/2006 02:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Yeah, I need to learn to do that.12/11/2006 03:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I wrote a guest post on Belle of the Brawl about two months ago (the post is linked here)

in which I wrote (in part),

. A fighter is only as good as his or her heart. So let’s look at the heart of conservatism in terms of the fight against radical Islam. Consider that in fact these Islamicists have much the same social agenda as conservatism: A theological outlook in which morality is the foundation for society, in which schools and other social institutions are based on a religious underpinning, and in which such perceived immorality as abortion, pornography, pre-marital or extra-marital sex and homosexuality is elevated to the level of a serious crime, sometimes even punishable by death. Islamicists also espouse a society in which government is fundamentally weak and real decisions are made by a council of Clerics, and religious institutions also oversee and decide on the distribution of social welfare. Prayers are offered in every classroom, scriptural doctrine including creationism is taught masquerading as science, women are expected to remain virginal and pure until marriage and then be subservient to their husbands, and political campaigns are conducted through mosques. True, the name of God is different, but the basic structure is very much the same as what some social conservatives would like America to be like. The Islamicists are fighting against having a secular government, so why would Americans who are against having a secular government put much of their heart into the fight?

Some conservatives hate it when you put it that way, probably because it hits too close to home.

But you are right, after decades of red-baiting, they have brought it on themselves.12/10/2006 11:14:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Matt Salmon, as quoted in yesterday's Political Notebook column:
I think it's very, very important for Republicans to pick people who can win in the general. I have lots of respect for the candidates who ran. But represented (District 8) for years and years and years, and I believe someone who was more in touch with his ideology would have been better.
So, is Salmon admiting that maybe Graf and was too conservative for the district? That maybe Republicans need to nominate more moderate candidates that are more in line with their constituency? Has anyone told the Republican activists this yet?|W|P|116577473968371148|W|P|Wait, Did Matt Say That?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/10/2006 01:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Tedski,
That quote is from Matt Salmon, amigo. Here's the quote:

"I think it's very, very important for Republicans to pick people who can win in the general," Salmon said. "I have lots of respect for the candidates who ran. But Jim Kolbe represented (District 8) for years and years and years, and I believe someone who was more in touch with his ideology would have been better."

Why would Randy say such a thing? Think about it.12/10/2006 02:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|You got me...this is what happens when I blog too early on a Sunday morning.

Geez.

I fixed it. Kinda lacks the impact now.12/10/2006 04:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Yeah, really. Who cares what Matt Salmon says?12/10/2006 10:37:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Cardinal Józef Glemp, Primate of Poland, submitted his resignation to Pope Benedict XVI, who accepted it. Glemp spent his youth in a Nazi slave labor camp and later went on to be the spiritual leader of the Solidarność movement, using the pulpit to call for civil disobedience during Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski's imposition of marshall law. Actions such as this prevented Jaruzelski from consolidating his authority over Poland and helped show the weakness of the totalitarian system. Glemp used the church as an instrument to empower the people over the powerful. Maybe some religious leaders here can learn from that example.|W|P|116577338509992331|W|P|Glemp Resigns|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/09/2006 05:18:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|For some time now, I've been linking to my brother's State House page. I don't know if you've seen the urls for the House and Senate pages, but they end in a number. Tom's used to end in 47. Turns out #47 has now been changed...check out who has #47 now. I don't know whether to count this as coincidence, irony or serendipity. Maybe it really isn't interesting enough to be any of those. Tom's page is now #46. Luckily, it didn't take me long to find it. It looks like they do this to keep the alphabetical order of the pages. It seems like an awful lot of work for something that most people will never pay much attention to, ie the URL. For some reason, the text on all those pages is the same, but the pictures have all been taken down. By the way, Steve Farley (and I know you are reading this...), your page is #21. His seat mate, Dave Bradley, has page #9. As we all know, this is a very important number as it is usually assigned to either an attacking or central mid-fielder. This was Joe-Max Moore's number and it was the number of Alan Shearer and Mexican legend Hugo Sanchez. 21...21 is cool too. That's Shalrie Joseph's and Landon Donovan's national team number, and is also the number of the up and coming Brazillian player Fred. Yes, his name is just Fred. He can do that because he's cooler than you.|W|P|116571173794429139|W|P|Linkin' Blogs|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/09/2006 08:47:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|You know, I have just noticed that you never post photos of Tom. You are the only person I can believe will never get a photo of him mixed up with yours.12/10/2006 07:09:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|The key question, though, is who is #10, the traditional playmaker's number?12/10/2006 08:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|#10 is...Jack Brown. Appropriate since he is assistant minority leader.

This also makes #1 (Goalkeeper) Mark Anderson.12/10/2006 10:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Actually...I did turn a picture of myself here.12/10/2006 10:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|"Who are you?"
"The new Number Two."
"Who is Number One?"
"You are Number Six."
"I AM NOT A NUMBER! I AM A FREE MAN!"12/10/2006 10:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|It is really "I am not a number, I am a person," on the television show The Prisoner. I think that the line "I am not a number, I am a free man" is from the Iron Maiden song, The Prisoner.12/10/2006 12:27:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Yes Ted but while as adorable your back may be, that does not count since it is not your face. And you have yet to post a photo of Tom for anything. Have I thanked you for that yet?

Just kidding Tom.12/09/2006 08:17:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The House ethics committee has released its official report into the matter. National media attention has focused on the involvement of outgoing Speaker , but local media has focused on the involvement of long time Southeast Arizona Congressman . The committee's findings on Kolbe's involvement can be found on pages 27-32 of the report (PDF here). The committee's conclusions about Kolbe's conduct in the matter can be found on pages 77-78 and 81-82. The panel says that Kolbe, as a retiring member, will soon be out of their jurisdiction. They leave it unclear whether they would have taken action if he had been continuing as a member. The committee recommended no action against Dennis Hastert or , who are still going to be members after January. The report has ginned up more speculation about the "real" reasons for Kolbe's retirement. Kolbe doesn't look particuarly spectacular here: he denies any knowledge about how bad the e-mails were despite a staffer telling him so, he seems to be satisfied with a promise from Foley not to write this particular page again and then seems to tell the page to stay quiet about the incident. I don't think that this thing had much to do with Kolbe's retirement though. Foley had evidently been doing this sort of thing for years, and there was no reason for Kolbe or anyone else to think back last November that it would break open this year. Given the lack of any action from the leadership on this matter (judging from the report, nothing happened until ABC broke the story), what reason would anyone have had to think there would have been consequences anyhow? Kolbe had been in congress for a long time (his replacement was a ninth grader* when he was sworn in), he probably just saw this as time to go. Also, he had been in for this long with no big leadership posts and only a subcommittee chairmanship to show for it. I don't know what was keeping him out of higher positions: his homosexuality or his relative moderation. He may have just realized that he had hit a celing. The Grand Canyon trip that came under press scrutiny about a month ago was not a subject for the ethics committee. I have all kinds of thoughts about this one, but I'll save them for later. CORRECTION: My original post refered to Kolbe's successor, Gabrielle Giffords, attending University High School as a freshman. An anal retentive nitpicker who had nothing better to do (my brother) called me to tell me that Giffords did not attend UHS in her freshman year. I called Giffords's sister, Melissa, and she told me that Giffords attended Emily Gray Middle School. As a middle school, it was 7th, 8th and 9th grades. Students were then given the option of attending other Pima County high schools, since Tanque Verde School District did not have a high school. Giffords finished her high school career at UHS. Tanque Verde has since built a high school and Emily Gray is now a junior high. R Cubed regrets the error.|W|P|116568102548544304|W|P|Kolbe in Foley Report|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/09/2006 02:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Interesting questions about Kolbe, Tedski.

The whole thing with Foley reminds me somewhat of what happened in the Catholic Church. For decades, a relatively small number of priests molest children, the heads of the Church are aware of it, the priests are transferred, counseled, etc... but most people never even knew it was happening. There was, in effect, a conspiracy of silence because the Church leaders decided that the institution would be irreparably harmed if it was revealed that children were molested by priests. And, the Church's could moral authority could not be compromised. Also, the Church leaders believed that the bad priests could be cured by sincerely and devoutly praying to God for a cure.

This worked, as we know, until the times changed and society developed support systems for victims of sexual abuse. And so ended the conspiracy of silence that protected the great institution of the Catholic Church.

I can definitely see where Kolbe might have seen the writing on the wall. This Foley scandal was bound to break sooner or later. There were just too many people aware of it and sooner or later a victim will come forward.

Who knows? It may have been that and it also may be that Kolbe wanted to retire for the same reasons as everyone else. Only he can tell you.12/09/2006 04:57:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I stood on a picket line with members of the International Association of Machinists Local 933 yesterday. They got a great many signs of support from the cars driving by, even the from some of the salaried employees leaving the Raytheon plant. The company itself has reported a 41% increase in earnings per share, but despite this they are asking workers to agree to an 87% increase in medical costs and block some workers' eligibility for a pay increase. With the increase in medical costs, this would result in a net decrease in take home pay for some workers. There is also a dispute over the pension, which is more than adequately funded. It is blatantly unfair to promise workers a pension then take that away from them when it becomes convienient, especially when they make those pension payments in lieu of take home pay. Although there have been formerly striking workers who have crossed the line (140, according to the AP), but the union reports between 170-180 non-union employees who are supporting the strike, and believe there will be more as the strike continues and the workplace conditions become worse. One of the things that has helped the union hold is that they have been running a job bank. Many local retailers have been hiring the striking workers as temporary holiday labor. The big irony for those of us that have been following the labor movement: one employer that has offered themselves up to hire strikers is Wal-Mart. I'll leave the ironies to you, but one worker I talked to thought that part of their motivation may have been to burnish their labor image. She thought it was funny that they showed her the anti-labor video that they show all new hires. The other ace that the union has is that these are highly skilled jobs. It has been difficult for Raytheon to maintain its production by moving management and salaried employees into jobs they aren't adequately trained for. They are claiming that their production levels are at 103%, but this may be because of overtime production that occurred at the end of the summer, and the excess stock being rolled out now. There are reports that one production line has been shut down, and reports that two Tomohawk missles were dropped (and ruined, that's a couple of million dollars right there) when replacement workers were operating a forklift. It is difficult to believe company reports that they are maintaining prodution levels with somewhere around 1,200 workers walking pickets. As I stood with the strikers, there was a small tent about a quarter mile up the road staffed with the security firm that the company has hired during the strike. Occasionally, these guys would get in a car and drive by us. Funny how the company can hire these guys to basically do nothing, but can't afford to give some of its long time employees raises.|W|P|116566858436259516|W|P|Raytheon Strike|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/07/2006 11:49:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Clue number 73 for all y'all that still think that is really one of us: he's hired Terry Nelson to be his National Campaign Manager. I was tipped off to this by Talking Points Memo who pointed out that this is the same Terry Nelson who made the infamous "Bimbo" ad against Harold Ford Jr., which was widely condemned as racist (I don't know if Nelson was behind an even more obviously racist last minute piece from Bob Corker's campaign). The guy was seen as so poisonous that even Wal-Mart dumped him from a voter-registration effort. So, even the ethically-challenged Wal-Mart wants nothing to do with the guy, but John McCain hires him? Dime con quien andas...|W|P|116551818050696246|W|P|And They'll Still Talk About Integrity and Call Him a Moderate|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/08/2006 12:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|He is wily though. He knows darn well that there is no way in heck that we will ever send more troops to Iraq, so by pushing for it, he will be in a position to say, as soon as Iraq melts all the way down (which will very likely happen no matter what we do), "See, now if you'd done it my way..."

I guess there is no way we can go back to 2003 and listen to Jacques Chirac.12/08/2006 06:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|Tedski:

Nelson is also an un-indicted co-conspirator in the DeLay TRMPAC finance scandal which got the bug man out of Congress, Texas and Nick Lampson as the Congressman for District 22.12/07/2006 11:04:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Legendary hip hop group Public Enemy played at the Rialto Theater last night. Those of you who have followed the group know it's pretty amazing that they would even play anywhere in our great state. I'm not always happy with their politics, but they express themselves with an anger and passion that has always gripped me. This is my political blog, so more about the music on my other blog when I get a chance to see what pictures came out. I could write about the "F*ck George Bush" cheer that Messrs. D and Flav led the crowd in, but the most interesting political event for me came just before they took the stage. The concert was sponsored by Hot 98.3, our local hip hop station ("#1 for Hip Hop and R&B" they say). A woman got up to introduce the band, and as soon as she gave her name and said that she was associated with CK and the Badboy Broadcast, that station's morning show, she was booed. She wasn't just booed, but she was jeered and even had water thrown at her. The woman was startled and even protested that they were the only station that plays hip hop. I had no idea that there was this level of hostility to the station or the program. Well, I did some asking around among my students, most of whom listen to 98.3. Back last spring during the walkouts and pro-immigrant demonstrations, CK and his crew engaged in immigrant bashing and poked fun at the students that had walked out of class. Apparently, the folks at 98.3 forgot that most of their listeners are Hispanic, and that most of those kids who were walking out of class were their listeners. Looking at the reaction last night, this short-term memory problem was not shared by Public Enemy fans. I remember the talk back in April when the immigrant bashing on the show was at it's height. I thought it bizarre since the show was politics free. One friend of mine even wondered if it had something to do with the politics of Clear Channel, the network that runs the station. I asked a guy that worked at Hot 98.3's sister station, KRQ, about this when I heard similar immigrant bashing from the predecessor to CK's show and he said, "They don't believe that, they are told to do that." No, couldn't be, Clear Channel is part of that liberal media conspiracy, right? NB - Mildy related political note: I met Chuck D at the 2004 Democratic Convention. We met, of all things, while listening to Willie Nelson's soundcheck. We talked for ten minutes or so. Nice guy.|W|P|116551644031410709|W|P|Maybe They Just Didn't Believe the Hype?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/06/2006 03:35:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The outgoing Republican majority in congress will be finishing up their session with twelve appropriations bills still waiting to be passed. The appropriations add up to to $463 Billion. I'm sure that they had much better things to spend their time on, like I don't know, oversight of the War in Iraq. Wait, they didn't do that either. Of course, they weren't left with much time to do anything, given that they only were in session a total of 241 days (the "do-nothing" congress of 1947-1948 was in session for 254 days). Given this amount of time, it would have been highly difficult to get House and Senate leadership together on these bills, especially since they were from the same party.|W|P|116544533531106636|W|P|"Party of Personal Responsibility" Leaves Mess for Next Guys to Clean Up|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/07/2006 08:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Aw, c'mon. Cut 'em some slack.

Have you any idea how much time it takes to set up slush funds and woo congressional pages?

These things take time.12/06/2006 01:17:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Here's my prediction: will win the Arizona Republican Presidential Primary in 2008. (Or "Preference Election" as the Secretary of State says) I know, I am going out on a real long limb there. Things like the recent defeat of Fife Symington in the District 11 race may show that there are grumblings on the part of the grassroots, but I don't think their grievances translate to the wider swath of voters that will be voting in the primary. McCain is appearing to take the contest seriously in Arizona, however. According to some of our Republican bloggers, McCain has brought Mike Hellon on board to organize Southern Arizona for him. Admitedly, his low percentage in his primary for congress may not impress, but he didn't tick any significant part of the Republican electorate off and he does have strong organizational skills and good connections. Mitt Romney has already made a visit out here and will probably be out here again. Romney has some family connections to the state (I dated a distant relative of his once) and it is possible that he could get some support from the Mormon community here. Here is my question though: does Romney, a governor of "Taxachusetts" after all, make for an alternative to McCain for conservatives? James Phillips, an ASU Grad student, is one person who thinks so. He has started a blog called AZ for Mitt, which is dedicated to boosting Romney and trashing McCain. Who else will try to make a stand out here? NB - A while back, I talked about a possible Mormon-Evangelical split as evidenced by who supported Don Goldwater vs. who supported Len Munsil. Phx Kid pooh-poohed the whole notion, but check out this stat from Rasmussen that says that 53% of Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon (compared to 43% of the elctorate). Also, Amy Sullivan has this piece in Washington Monthly with her take on whether the Republican's Evangelical base will accept a Mormon nominee. On the other side of that, there is an Evangelicals for Mitt site. One error I noticed in Sullivan's article. In it, she states that Romney would be "the first Mormon to run for president." I'm imagining that she means the first nominee, since Romney would be the fourth (at least), following on the heels of , Mo Udall and Mitt's father, George Romney.|W|P|116543828724486840|W|P|The Pachyderms Gear Up For 2008 Primary|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/06/2006 08:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Ted,

I was not able to find my past comment (I think it was from a while ago) so I am going from memory. I do not think I pooh-poohed it as much as just said that I had not noticed any split in my little corner of the Republican world. Even with the poor election results I have found the evangelical and LDS conservatives as united as ever.

I cannot speak to the national implication for Romney but many of my local LDS acquaintances were strong Munsil supporters.

My guess is that IF Romney wins the Republican nomination and faces a classic Northeaster liberal (Say Al Gore) then evangelicals will vote for Mitt. Everything is in a vacuum until the two parties choose their actual candidates.12/07/2006 07:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|Mormon might support an evangelical candidate like Munsil, but most evangelicals WILL NOT support a Mormon. Many evangelicals regard Mormonism as a suspect cult and not a form of Christianity at all. Witness the number of evangelical Republicans who refused to support Matt Salmon for governor a while back.12/05/2006 11:20:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|They had a minute of silence for Democratic activist Jesse George at the meeting on Saturday, which served to remind me that I hadn't said anything about the guy. Jesse George served in the Texas legislature and at the time was the youngest member to serve in that body. He later went on to work for the Small Business Administration under Lyndon Johnson. After Johnson left office, he made several moves, finally settling in Arizona. He was a resident of Phoenix for a time, where he ran for Justice of the Peace and served as a vice-chair of the State Democratic Party. Eventually, he moved to Tucson, here he served as Pima County Democratic Party Chair and ran for County Treasurer and State Representative. His Texas connections came in handy when he brought Jim Hightower out for a fundraiser (he also told me that he had met both the elder and junior George Bush). He was not able to get himself elected to office, but he was a dedicated and tenacious Democratic activist.|W|P|116534325686514380|W|P|Jesse George|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/06/2006 08:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Johnson wasn't defeated. He didn't run in '68.12/06/2006 09:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Geez...how the heck did I make that mistake?

I'll fix it.12/06/2006 02:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger judnag|W|P|Ted, thanks for the kind words about Jesse.12/07/2006 03:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|I don't think anyone has been a more effective Chair of the PCDP than Mr. George. He will be missed.12/04/2006 11:07:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, there was no quorum for the meeting on Saturday. Folks from Maricopa County hate to drive down to Tucson for these meetings. I don't know why that is, since the rest of us are supposed to be ecstatic to drive up for meetings up there. The only real piece of business was a resolution to support End the War in Iraq Act (also co-sponsored by ). Since there was no quorum, the resolution couldn't actually be voted on. There was a sort of straw vote on the floor, however. An interesting bit was the report from National Committeewoman Janice Brunson, who voiced her displeasure at the Democratic National Committee for neglecting the caucus system. Aside from showing up at Hispanic Caucus and Ethnic Council meetings at the National Conventions, I don't know enough to comment on what exactly has been going on with them. I do know that one concern Howard Dean had was that too much outreach work was being balkanized into the various DNC "desks" instead of developing an overall vision. One concern that she also voiced was that there were too many young people working at the DNC. I found this pretty insulting, especially coming from someone who at one time prided herself on wanting to bring more young people into the party. I saw both Jeff Latas and Randy Camacho there. Neither one seemed to buttonhole people during the meeting, but afterward both worked the crowd. Latas found me after the meeting and wanted me to know that all of the concerns I had about his candidacy were addressed during his speech to the PDA. Well, since I wasn't at the PDA meeting, I had to settle for his précis. Latas pointed out to me that the turnout was laudable (In Pima County, it was 65%), this still meant that a significant number of voters didn't show up. His question is: what more can be done to contact these voters and bring them out? I'd like to see details on what sort of program he'd like to put together to do this. When I worked for the state party in 2000 and 2002 (and the weekend of paid field work I did in this election as well) the only job I had was to contact Democratic voters and make them show up. There really isn't a heck of a lot more that the party does, really. I hope that his talking about this doesn't mean that he thinks that the party doesn't do this now, but rather that he has some new ideas about how this is supposed to work. Nationally, the knock against the party (particularly in the 2004 election) has been that they are too willing to farm out paid canvassing work to outside groups. My feeling is that here in Arizona, we've been burned by these organizations one too many times (one that I worked for packed up after two weeks, not too much chance for follow up there) and the State Party should figure out some way to pay for it's own longer term programs, and figure out ways that the activists can be better organized to do some of this work as well. You know, I talked to David Waid for quite some time and never asked him if he was running or not. If I were him, I'd be non-committal right now anyway. I saw some electioneering for the post of Maricopa County Chair. Apparently, two-time Corporation Commission candidate Mark Manoil is one candidate, and State Party staffer David Lelsz might be interested as well. After the meeting, there was a reception for Gabrielle Giffords (her plane was delayed a bit because of weather). She mentioned that she went to England on a trip with her fiancee where she hung out with Stephen Hawking for about two hours. I've always had my doubts that very many of the thousands who made A Brief History of Time a best seller had ever read the darned thing (and I don't blame them if they didn't, I found the writing very dense. I prefer to read Richard Feynman if I want to read physics), but if Giffords did, more power to her. It all begs the question: what would Randy Graf have talked to Hawking about for two hours?|W|P|116525863289828084|W|P|Saturday's Democratic State Convention|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/04/2006 12:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Tedski,

Please elaborate, I thought your party needed to select a new chairman. Was that suppose to be done at this meeting or will it happen at an upcoming meeting?12/04/2006 02:50:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|phx kid -

I'm not sure, and Tedski will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's because the new-elected members of the state committee are responsible for electing the new chair, and the new members won't take office until January.

This meeting was just the wrap-up meeting of the old state comm.

Tedski - thanks for the write up; since I'm not a member, I wouldn't have gone anyway, but it's great to hear about what went on.12/04/2006 03:23:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I was at the AzDPC meeting where both Randy Commaco and Jeff Latas spoke. Randy went first and is very eloquent. I could see that the crowd was impressed.

I didn't think would have been in the same league, but wow. I from Maricopa and had heard about Latas because of my progressiveness. I thought his delivery was amazing. No notes and very, very powerful. There is no doubt in my mind that the leadership qualities shown by both are high but Latas is by far the more indepth leader and most sincere.

I would like to hear what other people thought that were there.12/04/2006 03:31:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Must be the cold meds..

What I meant to say was:

I didn't think Jeff could have made it into the same league, but wow!

I think that sentence makes a little more since.12/04/2006 03:52:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|I have read Hawking's book, and it's not TOO tekkie, but agree with you about Feynman.

Sure must be nice being Giffords. Wish I could fly with my fiance to England to hang out with Hawkings.

Wish I had a fiance. Had one of those once--it was marvelous.

Then I married her.

Screwed up everything.12/04/2006 06:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|condem,
It's good to hear positive feedback about Jeff Latas from someone who was not vested in this CD8 election.

x4mr,
Still whining about the ex-wife, huh? Reminds me of that slogan they put on T-shirts a few years back, "Life is a B*tch and then you marry one."

My first ex and I just had our 25th wedding anniversary except, of course, we didn't have it. We missed it by 21 years and he's dead now, anyhow. However, he looked me up a couple of years ago and told me I was, without a doubt, the best of his three wives and he really screwed up. Maybe you'll have a similar experience, x4mr. Give it time.12/04/2006 07:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|I love Feynman, and have enjoyed Hawking's works ... in the original Klingon even! :P

MI wouldn't have killed someone, but I'd have seriously roughed someone up (who deserved it) for the opportunity to spend two hours with him.

Brian Greene is pretty good at making dense topics readable for someone more recent.12/04/2006 08:18:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|The only physicist I ever read is David Deutsch who writes about alternative universes and has interesting theories on childrearing.
The interesting thing about him is he has been working at Oxford about a quantum computer and apparently they are within sight of having one. According to his last post on his blog anyway.12/04/2006 08:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|I hope that Randy would not have said that reading Hawkins is "above his perspective pay grade"--like I think he said when asked about Iran during the campaign.

It's good that Giffords read the book--we need a lot more people who are conversant with technical matters in Congress.12/04/2006 08:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|Latas is one of the few truly inspirational [and technically knowledgeable] speakers I have heard in a long time.12/04/2006 10:17:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|The image of Randy Graf having a conversation with Stephen Hawkings is a real gut buster.

"STILL whining", Liza? I think I have shown remarkable restraint. She got everything including the dogs.

Really miss those dogs.

Not to digress too far, but the physics stuff is running into consciousness stuff, things like Penrose "Emperor's New Mind" and the "What the Bleep" flick.

I hope Jeff Latas finds the angle where his views and his voice can make a difference.12/05/2006 08:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|x4mr,
I got off light, I guess, because I paid for his college education. Besides, greed wasn't one of his faults.

BTW, is anyone out there besides me tired of reading about Giffords on these blogs? Does anyone really care who she talks to for two hours?12/02/2006 10:23:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A Howard Fischer story made the rounds last week about Sen. Karen Johnson and her latest claims of, I think, a Canadian invasion. Many of us had a chuckle about it, including her assertion that she had meetings with and about the issue, an assertion not yet confirmed by either office. Here is what should really send up alarm bells, from Fischer's article:
Johnson, who will head the Senate Education Committee this coming session...
Yes, that's right, despite some folks reading the reticence of Flake and Renzi as some sort of "shunning" by Republican leaders, apparently, the ones in the legislature think enough of her that she should head up the education committee. This would have to mean that Tim Bee, who was supported by the AEA with more enthusiasm than was given to some Democrats, thought this woman (and this sort of statement isn't new for Johnson) should be shepherding school policy through the legislature. Karen Johnson appeared in an unaired Randy Graf ad this cycle with Rep. Russell Pearce, who will again chair the Appropriations committee. In addition, Sen. Ron Gould will chair Transportation. This begs the question: just loopy and intollerant does one have to be before people say, "hey, wait a sec?" Do they have to actually bring the gas to a cross-burning? Hand out copies of the Turner Diaries? Dress like Mussolini?|W|P|116508175248044420|W|P|Here is the Funny Part|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/02/2006 11:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Joe Thomas|W|P|Tedski,

Love the blog. Could you elaborate on one strand from this Karen Johnson piece:

This would have to mean that Tim Bee, who was supported by the AEA with more enthusiasm than was given to some Democrats, thought this woman (and this sort of statement isn't new for Johnson) should be shepherding school policy through the legislature.

I'm in Phoenix, so I miss out on a lot of what happens down in the Dem-friendly Tucson area. Who in particular did AEA not support that you feel they should have (if I am reading your inference correctly)?

Are you aiming at Tim Bee, AEA, or both?12/02/2006 02:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger shrimplate|W|P|I thought Johnson already dressed like Mussolini.12/02/2006 06:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger azwildcat88|W|P|TimBee has long been a supporter of Education and has had the support of the AEA for a long time. I can't recall what Tim does for a living, but
His father was the printshop teacher @ Palo verde HS for ages.

Their enthusiasm for him this cycle is they liked the idea of a pro education republican in charge of the Senate.

I do wonder about this chice to head the education committee...12/02/2006 10:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger NetrootsDemocrat|W|P|I am VERY progressive and I lobbied at the AZ Capitol and Karen was one of the most pleasant, honorable Representatives I have ever worked with. Yes, I disagree with her on most things - in particular gay issues - but she always kept her word come hell or high water, you knew where she stood, and she wasn't in the pocket of corporate lobbyists. In fact, she is always endorsed by the trial lawyers, is against the trade deals (though not a state issue), and most importantly, is vehemently for election reform with paper trails. She's been on Air America about it.

She is for pay raises for state employees and voted for it. Also, she was always pro-law enforcement union when I lobbied her. She carried and passed several bills for us. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised how she does. It is no accident she is often attacked by the corporate wing of her party.

She was always a pleasure to work with, and though I am gay, she never treated me any different personally (contrary to some supposedly more moderate Republicans there). Though, obviously, her gay stance is absolutely repellant, immoral, disgusting, and loathesome. But it's based on her belief system, which is better than some Republicans who base it on their disgust with homosexual sex.

Full disclosure: I no longer lobby for unions at the Capitol. I now do the same thing in Massachusetts.12/03/2006 01:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|I read this past year that Vicente Fox had proposed to Bush several years ago that the FREE FLOW OF LABOR be allowed, along with the FREE FLOW OF GOODS, across the U.S./Mexico border.

Obviously there are a lot of businesses benefitting from the free flow of labor--Why else would we have employer sanctions on the books for 20 years which are not enforced???

Also, it is my impression that with some trade agreements, local environmental and other local requirements/laws can be usurped, so to speak.12/03/2006 08:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I have no idea why Tim Bee is making the decisions that he is with regard to committees. Could it be seniority?

However, one ancillary benefit to placing hardcore conservatives into positions of powers is this:

Mr. Bee is considered a top flight possible challenger to Giffords in 2008. While he does come across moderate on many issues like education, he will still have to appeal to the hard core conservatives that make up the active base of the Republican primary in S. Arizona.

We all see what the impact of that base can be and how they can strike out against anyone who does not share their conservative credentials in a primary.12/03/2006 09:22:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|The Republican primary this year seemed to me like a bad joke. I am not a Republican but couldn't make any sense of where the candidates were on the issues, ith the exception of making the immigration problem terribly volatile. 2008 will not be a repeat, believe me.

I believe Gabby will do a good job - personally, I hope she champions causes that benefit people such as passing a minimum wage, lowering student tuition, affordable health care (although I prefer universal health care) - reforms for the credit card industry - aligning herself with the concerns and needs of people who work for a living in an often hostile world. She received massive endorsement from union groups and this makes me feel she is and will be responsive to the needs of everywoman and everyman. This will certainly strengthen her position in 2008.12/01/2006 06:25:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|There are a few, believe it or not, Republican activists and poohbahs that talk to me. One thing that I'm hearing from a few of them is that the CD 8 and CD 5 seats will be easilly retaken by them. I don't think it will be that easy in either race, but please guys, keep thinking this way. This sort of talk seems to be particularly over hopeful in the case of Gabrielle Giffords. There is no doubt in my mind that this first re-election will be tough, but talk in Republican circles that she is already road kill is woefully premature. She ran a very disciplined campaign, and there is no reason to think she won't run one next time too, especially with the trappings of incumbency to help her. Tim Bee, who was already talking himself up as a candidate before the ballots were counted, seems to think that Giffords will be outed as some sort of out of touch lefty and the voters will turn on her. What Bee forgets is that it was the conservative in this last election that was out of touch with the voters. In the case of Harry Mitchell, I can see Republican hopes there. The area has been traditionally Republican with 6,754 more of them than Democrats. It can be argued that Mitchell won because of connections to the Jack Abramoff scandals as well as his style, which finally seemed to grate as much on voters as it did his colleagues. Republicans are already talking about Rep. Michelle Reagan as if Tempe leaders will pull down the Mitchell statue and replace it with hers in two years. However, it must be remembered that Mitchell was recruited because he was a strong candidate and a popular local leader. Party leaders recognized that Hayworth would be tough to beat, and wanted to have the best possible nominee. Mitchell wasn't some schlub that just lucked out. It is also worth noting that independent voters, who went for Mitchell in droves, number 33,953, which is more than either of the major parties. The results in Tempe, where incumbent Republican Laura Knaperek was beaten by some 3,000 votes, show some definite movement to the Democratic party in some parts of the district. Spidelblog pointed this interesting bit out: the Washington Post has already posted a list of what races are possible party switches in 2008. Guess what? Neither CD 5 or CD 8 is on there but CD1 is. Apparently they think that these little possible criminal indictments might make a difference. I wonder if it will to the Republic?|W|P|116502522855782267|W|P|Who is Toast in 2008?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/01/2006 09:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|One of my Republican buddies also mentioned Carolyn Allen as someone who might run against Harry in 2008.12/01/2006 11:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger NetrootsDemocrat|W|P|The conventional wisdom is that a vulnerable candidate wins by less than a couple of points prior to the election whereby they get defeated.

There isn't a candidate out there that can defeat the grandfather Harry Mitchell. I don't know, something tells me that most voters thoughts of voting against a unique guy like Mitchell is akin to voting against Santa Claus.

As for Giffords, most people don't know a Congressperson's voting record. And CD-08 is way more liberal that people think. It's kinda leftish on the social issues in particular. Giffords also projects a likeable and moderate image, whatever her voting record may be.

And Calolyn Allen? OMG, she's as old as Hirohito...and Hirohito's dead. She couldn't even make it to washington, much less run a grueling campaign. Plus, being a mod, she'd never make it out of the primary. Perhaps Reagan faces the same problem vis-a-vis her pro-choice position.

The GOPers should stop running their mouths this early and make sure they 1) keep their troops together in the statehouse, and 2) have an electable replacement for McCain if he retires in 08.12/01/2006 11:53:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|If the rumored reintroduction of the Out of Iraq resolution, with a little more enforcement, (lite version passed last August at the Flagstaff Democratic State Convention) at tomorrow's Tucson Democratic State Convention is opposed by Harry, Gabby and David Waid (as the current word in the backrooms suggest) Gabby and Harry will be lucky if they are able to run unopposed in the 2008 primary.

Tomorrow's lame duck session of the out-going Democratic State Committee may turnout to be a blood bath and the most interesting news of the day.12/02/2006 02:08:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|The GOP will need a candidate who can keep the base in tow while appealing to the Independents who went overwhelmingly for Mitchell last month. Hayworth, Allen Knaperek, and Huppenthal don't pass that test. But how about Michele Reagan or Hugh Hallman? See http://bloggerforphoenix.blogspot.com/ for more analysis on who's likely to run and what Mitchell needs to do to win.12/02/2006 08:44:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.12/02/2006 10:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Snowbrdr-

Great, these two have not even been sworn in yet, and you are already talking about a primary challenge?12/02/2006 11:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Joe Thomas|W|P|Caroyln Allen, I believe, lost a close family member recently. I believe her political career is in its twilight. I am more concerned about her resigning mid-session (and being replaced by the LD08 Rep party-- most likely Rosatti) than of her running against Mitchell in '08.

But what the hell do I know? :)12/02/2006 10:11:00 PM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Tedski, if the shoe fits they get to wear it.

Annointment is not a requirement before one may be subject to accountability.

As it turns out there was not a quorum, (Gabby stuck in an weather-delayed airport, didn't even make the convention) so for today they get a pass.

If we can't expect a higher standard from our own, why bother with elections at all?12/04/2006 12:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Ted:

I think they may just know something about CD 1. If you caught the comment at the meeting Saturday, you know what I mean. Anyway, I've already engaged in enough idle speculation about it to last for awhile.12/05/2006 11:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Samuel Rutherford|W|P|I would have to agree with your assessment on CD5 and CD8. Harry will get bumped in 2008 but CD5 is Gabby's to lose. My guess is that Gabby will hold that seat for some time. Tucson has continued to move in the liberal direction for some time meaning any Republican who runs will have to be from the Kolbe wing of the party.12/01/2006 06:39:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|As much fun as I've had poking at the Republicans, there is a race for Party Chair on our side too. The last two years have seen three, yes three, State Democratic Party Chairs. Jim Pederson resigned to run for US Senate, his replacement Harry Mitchell resigned to run for US House. Mitchell was replaced with the novel choice of the Executive Director, David Waid. Waid hasn't said either way if he will run this time around. Despite extensive lists of dream candidates (and here too), there seems to be only two actual candidates who are running. Party activist and teacher Randy Camacho has already earned the support of and (although not, as was rumored, the support of Terry Goddard, who has remained neutral so far). Camacho is a former congressional candidate, running against twice. There are some concerns about his fundraising ability. He did, however, raise $46,296 in his first race and $93,253 in his second. I am impressed with the second number, which isn't bad considering that he was running uphill the entire time. These aren't the numbers that one can run the state party on, but he at least seems to know something about making the money calls. His probable opponent is Jeff Latas. Latas, for those of you that haven't paid enough attention to this blog, ran in the CD 8 Democratic primary as an alternative to the left of Patty Weiss and eventual nominee and Congresswoman-elect Gabrielle Giffords. Latas's supporters were rumored to be attempting a take over of some Pima County district clubs as a show of muscle flexing, but aside from District 26, it hasn't been as successful as they probably would have liked. He does, however, have the support of the Sonora Progressive Democrats, many of whom are on the state committee. I'm still a bit unclear on what the Latas supporters think he can accomplish as chair. In this recent election cycle, the Democratic nominees for Governor and Attorney General put up impressive wins, we won two US House seats, and gains were made in the State House and Senate. Before anyone says that this was going to happen anyway, remember that political pros were saying two years ago that Napolitano was a one term fluke, early this year Republicans were salivating about a possible 2/3 majority House and Senate, and it took some foresight to see that a decent candidate could be recruited to take out . Exactly what part of this does Latas think was a failure? What would he have done differently to make it possible for, I dunno, Janet Napolitano to get 70% or for Phil Lopes to have another couple of caucus members? What I do hear is the phrase "holding our elected officials accountable." I think we can do that as citizens every election at the ballot box, or even as activists when we decide who we will support. I have big problems with party committees doing this except in the most limited of circumstances. If the folks throwing this phrase around mean having the party enforce loyalty oaths or passing resolutions to condemn our elected officials, I'd rather not have any part of it. What this sounds like is those hard right Republican clubs in Phoenix that pass anti- resolutions: McCain just blows it off, and the activists just look like buffoons. I am also wondering if Latas is over estimating his support in Phoenix. The lion's share of the votes will come from the greater Phoenix area, where he doesn't have the same level of grass roots support as he has here. I'm wondering if Latas's "I've been an insurgent that wasn't afraid to take on a popular Republican" mantle can also be claimed by Camacho, who would be much better known to the Phoenix activists. A big question in this race is who will Napolitano throw her weight behind. Traditionally, if the state has a Democratic governor, the Governor will all but pick the State Chair. There is some worry from the Governor's camp about Latas, and some constrenation in other quarters that the early backing of Camacho by Grijalva and Pastor (which was done without talking to the Governor) may indicate some split among our Democratic College of Cardinals. I've asked a couple of people "Who is the governor backing then?" and no one seems to have an answer. State committee meeting on Saturday, we'll see what's up. Trouble is, everyone knows me now and stops even whispering when I'm around. NB - All this talk about Randy Camacho, what about Juan Camacho? The meetings would certainly be more lively.|W|P|116498285517866859|W|P|Chairman Follies: the Democrats|W|P|prezelski@aol.com12/01/2006 03:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Framer|W|P|You said:

"I am also wondering if Latas is over estimating his support in Phoenix."

Not to snark, but I wonder if Latas is overestimating his support down south as well. It's not like his grassroots lit the sky on fire during the primary.

Latas sounds like the only way he can run is to run angry. Not sure if that is the ticket to the state chairmanship at this point.12/01/2006 07:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|You forgot Carter Olson who is running from Pinal and there are a lot of folks trying to draft Alexis Tameron, young democrat, to run.12/01/2006 08:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Travis|W|P|Up north we're holding out for the return of Jim Pederson. Everybody else is just a pretender to The Chair.12/01/2006 10:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Mexilina|W|P|Yeayyy I vote for the Macho Camacho!!12/01/2006 11:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger NetrootsDemocrat|W|P|I am for Camacho! Enthusiastically.12/01/2006 11:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|The Governor sent out letters during the last several weeks talking about the accomplishments of the Arizona Democrats AND giving special recognition to David Waid and the coordinated campaign. She obviously views him very positively.....12/02/2006 12:25:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|"political pros were saying 2 years ago that Napolitano was a 1 term fluke ..." What political pros -- Republicans?? Eleven months ago Janet was a shoe-in and the Repugs were consulting Dex !

As far as "special recognition (from the Gov) to David Waid", she gave special recognition to Michael Frais also and the only recognition either really deserve is blowing the Coordinated Campaign to pad Janet's margin.

Word is Frias is looking for a new job after knocking down $120K to destroy the Coordinated Campaign, Hopefully, he'll find it in another undeserving state.12/02/2006 07:16:00 AM|W|P|Anonymous Anonymous|W|P|Let me see if I understand this: Jeff Latas, who did not express his support for the winner of the primary in AZ 8, which he did not win (sounds better than to say he lost) now wants to be State chair. I always thought the State chair supported Democratic candidates - no?12/02/2006 08:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Sandy in Prescott|W|P|I would support Carter Olson or Jim Pederson. problem is that Jim is not running and has told multiple people that exact thing MULTIPLE TIMES. He's done. He got burned by the Governor , burned by the state party and burned by Arizona Democrats.12/03/2006 08:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Framer|W|P|You mean the same Jim Pederson that didn't place any "Democrat" label on any of his signs or advertising. "Nobody's senator but yours?"

I would have thought that Democratic support would have brought him down judging by the campaign he ran. Hard to blame the state Democrats for his failure, they seemed to pull through for almost everyone else.