The Previous Post May be in Error

If a candidate files paperwork with the Secretary of State but intends to run "clean" as opposed to using traditional fundraising, the filing paperwork may not immediately reflect the "Clean Elections" filing. Until we have verified Jan Brewer's filing we will offer an apology for what may be an incorrect statement. I apologize. The error, if indeed there has been one, is mine and mine alone.

Now, when will Gila Courier tell us who authored their bogus post on Prop 200?

Tough Times Call for Tough Decisions, Too Bad Brewer Can't Make One

Yesterday Gov. Brewer filed her paperwork to run for her own term outright. One can review the paperwork at www.azsos.gov/. Her Committee ID number is 201000308.

Here's what I noticed; her filing is for a "non-participating" candidate, meaning she intends to run on traditional fundraising. Her website, www.janbrewer.com, is asking for $5 donations to qualify for Clean Elections or public financing.

Seems the "leadership deficit" didn't get fixed when Kevin Tyne got the boot.

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"