By New Times
By Connor Radnovich
By Robrt L. Pela and Amy Silverman
By Ray Stern
By Keegan Hamilton
By Matthew Hendley
By Monica Alonzo
By Monica Alonzo
The best example is shown when the article mentions that the dastardly Republicans continue to try to increase disposable income through "the old drum of tax breaks."
U.S. Senate candidate and state Democratic Party Chairman Jim Pederson, the newly identified moderate, centrist, progressive Democrat, still holds the old liberal, elitist, left-wing, far-left ideal that the way to increase disposable income is by having the "universities cranking out topnotch employees" and making sure that they have a place "where the air is breathable and the water is clean."
Which is a simpler, better way to increase disposable income? Reducing taxes for all or filtering it through more money for the universities and breathable air and clean air? Not being an elitist, I just can't get my head around how air and water will increase my disposable income. This is also a betrayal of 75 percent of the population that does not want to get a college degree.
I also love how Phil Gordon, a newly identified moderate, centrist, progressive Democrat, is exposed a week later as being a liberal, left-wing Democrat by embracing a democratic ideal of not giving back a rightful primary property tax decrease. While John Dougherty does a nice job of exposing the mayor ("History of Deceit," March 2), he neglects to mention that the mayor is a Democrat, providing cover for the Democratic party.
As for Janet, forget it.
She embraces Prop 200 and then fights its implementation through the courts.
She supports sending the National Guard to the border, but only if someone else pays for it.
She says she's a moderate, centrist, progressive Democrat, but her actions are the actions of an old liberal, elitist, left-wing, far-left Democrat.
It must be hell to be a Democrat, knowing you can't get elected if you tell the public who you are or what you really feel.
D. Ellig, via the Internet
Playing politician: While I agree with Robert Nelson's thesis in "Donkey Kong," I find it sad that Arizona Democrats have had to change their stripes (to mix another metaphor) to establish their "800-pound gorilla."
The only thing I can hope, as a Democrat who transplanted here from Chicago (where real Democrats thrive), is that the locals are using the Trojan Horse approach to politics. That is, they're trying to get elected with moderate ideas, and then will do what's right once they get past the state's middle-of-the-road to conservative electorate.
But if Janet Napolitano is any example, then that doesn't seem to be happening. I don't see her pushing many progressive ideas, unless you think her advocacy of doing more for the children is progressive. Hell, everybody's for that, in one form or another!
Pretty much what I see Donkey Kong (your name for Janet) doing is playing politician. Come on, her idea to beef up the National Guard at the border is nothing but pandering to the Neanderthals in this state to get reelected. If she really believes this is a good idea, she's as bad as the Republicans who've been screaming about Mes-cans for decades.
I notice you skewered her on this point in your piece in The Bird about state Representative Kyrsten Sinema ("Howl of Sanity," Robrt L. Pela, March 9) -- and it was a point well taken that none of the other media seem smart enough to see. You noted that she is so disingenuous that she's trying to get George W. Bush to fund her gutless anti-illegal-immigration Guard deployment, instead of getting state funds allocated.
What a race-baiting coward!
Harry Curtis, via the Internet
Quality of Life
Tax and the city: I'm beginning to think that the mission statement of your paper is: Make people feel as miserable about their community as possible.
First we had New Times Associate Editor Amy Silverman basically trashing life in the Valley of the Sun on a national radio show, even as the host baited and practically begged her to say something nice about Phoenix.
Now you're giving the citizens of Phoenix a one-sided argument in favor of voting down the bond issues in "History of Deceit." This is your free-press right; furthermore, I don't suppose I can argue with a lot of what John Dougherty asserts. However, as someone who really likes living here and wants to see realized the progress that the bond package would indeed provide for our city, I feel Mr. Dougherty and Randy Pullen are giving our electorate bad advice.
Randy Pullen lost the election to Mayor Phil Gordon, and now he wants to stall progress in our city? Let him buzz off. And, in fact, now that I hear more of what he believes, I'm even more convinced that he was the wrong man for the job.
Of course politicians at all levels of government are less than totally honest. At the same time, though, we elected these folks, and I believe that now it is time to trust them and let them improve our city in the ways that the bond package promises.
If we vote it down, that means at least another year will go by before anything happens. Is anyone else besides me getting sick of waiting?
And as for property tax increases, I would say to Phoenix residents: Do we want this city to become more like Portland and San Francisco, or more like Midland-Odessa, Texas, and Fresno, California?
Gregory Falkenstein, Phoenix