Tea Baggers are Hypocrites

azgopisazteaparty
Originally uploaded by beercanbard

The tbaggerz are now all butt hurt about being called tbaggerz. Never mind that they picked the name. Never mind that they toss around Obama-as-Hitler images like they were pokemon cards.

Here's a Stalin reference from the Arizona Republican Party. This is from their Youtube channel.

HBO Documentary Films: By The People: The Election of Barack Obama Trailer (HBO)

Three Strikes and You're Out Should Mean Something

1. Gila Courier lies about Rep. Giffords
2. Gila Courier pooches important numbers on a poll because, well, they had already written the headline and couldn't explain the facts away.
3. Gila Courier knowingly misrepresents crime statistics to support Tucson's Prop. 200 (and when called out on it, do it again.)

A piece of advice to the crack crew at the 'courier; before your next post, dither.



not "Ryan"

Is You IS or Is you Isn't?

Image by CR Artist via Flickr

Below is an email I just sent to Nick Drainius of the Goldwater Institute and author of an op-ed in today's Arizona Daily Star on Prop. 200:

Dear Mr. Dranias,

There seems to be some confusion here in the "Old Pueblo" as to your Prop. 200 op-ed in this morning's Arizona Daily Star. The first hint we received was last Thursday when Jim Nintzel of the Tucson Weekly posted something on their blog "The Range." This was the headline:

More Opposition to Public Safety First Initiative: Goldwater Institute Says Prop 200 "Won’t Put Public Safety First, It Will Just Bloat City Government"

That made it read as if the Goldwater Institute had taken a position on Prop. 200. Today's op-ed uses your Goldwater Institute email for replies, just like your previously published op-ed the "Star" on the topic of Mr. Goodman's attempt to redevelop some of his property. Ironically, Mr. Goodman is one of the deeper pockets funding the pass Prop. 200 campaign.

The text of your op-ed was sent out this morning as the "daily email" from the Goldwater Institute and appears on the Goldwater Institute website.

No where in today's op-ed do you claim the piece is your opinion solely and in fact, one could easily claim the piece IS the position of the Goldwater Institute.

The piece is reprinted in whole on the conservative blog "Sonoran Alliance" as "Posted by Goldwater Institute."

My question is simple, does today's op-ed represent only your opinion? If so, how do you explain the observations above?

Thanking you in advance of your reply.

Best Regards,

-kenny

Ken Jacobs

"The strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose."

--BARACK OBAMA

Carolina Chocolate Drops "Cornbread and Butterbeans"

Strong Enough for a Man but Made for a Woman

We have written about Rep. Ray Barnes (R-LD7) and his Campaign Committee shenanigans before, and apparently he now believes he was in error. On October 20th he filed papers for an Exploratory Committee. It's got a different ID number, different treasurer and even has a coma between the word "Exploratory" and the phrase "Ray Barnes for Senate." That's totally different, see, no one is going to wonder why he would run for election and then eight months later decide to "explore" for the office for which he's been running. He's got things straight in his head.

Example: The Yellow Sheet (subscription required) shares that Rep. Barnes, while praising fellow premature-electorator Sen. John Huppenthal, took it upon himself to distinguish Huppenthal from other people, women particularly. Barnes sees Huppenthal as "logical" which he finds as a praiseworthy quality, while disliking parts of our politics that have become "emotional." Just what has become too "emotional" in our politics? Women, he said, are too emotional and not enough like men. I'm sure it was quite a punch in the gut for Barnes to be asked to clarify
his comments about women in politics. That's when he coughed up this
little jewel:

I don’t think it’s sexist. I married a woman because she’s a woman, not a man.

One would think that a "tell-it-like-it-is" moment like that might leave Barnes hanging out there on his own, but no, Constantine Querard (CQ) came to the rescue on a Facebook thread by writing,

“Anyone who has been successfully married that long must have figured out a few things!”

We all know how little Constantine's campaign work has been built on "emotion." Hell, Constantine only agreed with Barnes because of his own Vulcan-like logical mind as displayed here on his twitter account:

WNBA Finals crowd: Testosterone? Lots. Men in the crowd? Not so many!7:32 AM Sep 30th from web

These guys know what they like in a woman! Mainly, that they ARE women because, you know, those women who aren't women ARE DEFINITELY NOT what they are looking for in a woman. It's a choice, you know, the amount of womanly attributes one must find in a mate so one can show the world the person one chose is a woman!

Secret Deodorant [1985]