Are GOP candidates adopting the ‘Diane Douglas way’?


You will recall that two years ago a woefully unqualified Tea-Publican candidate ran for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, Diane Douglas. Let’s just say that she had a “unique,” if not entirely asymmetrical way of campaigning for office. The invisible candidate:

Diane DouglasYou can look for Diane Douglas, but you might not find her.

The Republican candidate for school superintendent — a key influencer of education policy in Arizona — has been nearly invisible to parents, teachers and her opponent in the two months since the primaries.

* * *

Staffers for her Democratic opponent, David Garcia, say there have been 16 candidate debates or forums since the primary when Garcia was the sole candidate present. She did participate in the Clean Elections debate on PBS’ “Horizon,” which she was required to attend. But that’s it.

Douglas’ backers would claim you can hear her chatting on the phone with friendly interviewers on conservative talk radio. The interviewers tee up her one talking point: The Common Core standards represent a massive federal takeover of education in Arizona.

But Douglas won’t debate that point. She won’t even discuss it with anyone outside her echo chamber.

Douglas’ strategy, assuming that’s what it is, makes political sense: Just be quiet and ride the built-in Republican voting advantage to victory. Her race is far down the ballot, so it doesn’t have the high profile of other races and might get more reflexive GOP votes.

This cynical strategy worked. In an historically low voter turnout election, Diane Douglas was able to rely on Tea-Publican voters who reflexively vote out of GOP tribalism for anyone with an “(R)” behind his or name on the ballot. More Tea-Publicans voted than did Democrats in 2014, hence Douglas’ narrow victory that quite literally shocked everyone in Arizona.

Apparently Tea-Publican candidates this year are taking a page from the “Diane Douglas way” of running for office. I have spoken to several candidates who tell me that their Tea-Publican opponent has not submitted candidate questionnaires to the media, have not shown up for editorial board endorsement interviews, and have not participated in any debates or candidate forums (unless they were required to do so as a Clean Elections candidate).

This “Diane Douglas way” of running for office demonstrates contempt for the media, contempt for the voters’ right to be well informed, and contempt for the voters’ right to challenge the candidates with questions about their qualifications and  stances on important issues at candidate debates and forums.

It demonstrates a fundamental contempt for the American democratic process of elections.

If you are a Democratic candidate who has had this experience with your Tea-Publican opponent, or you are a member of the media or a civic group that has tried and failed to schedule a candidate debate or forum, or you are a member of the editorial board of one of Arizona’s media outlets, you need to be informing the voters that this is going on. The public has a right to know that the GOP is employing this tactic.

Please feel free to post your experiences in the comments.

Note: Arizona Horizon Eight (PBS) has a CD 1 Congressional Debate presently scheduled for September 28.

The League of Women Voters of Greater Tucson had a U.S. Senate Forum scheduled for October 10 at the Mesa Community College Performing Arts Center in Mesa, but that forum has been cancelled.

I am not finding any debates, other than Clean Elections debates, advertised by any of the usual debate sponsors. If you know of any, please post the information in the comments with a link so that we can follow up.

UPDATE: The Republic now reports Kirkpatrick, McCain to face off in Republic/Arizona PBS debate:

Arizona’s major-party U.S. Senate candidates have agreed to their first, and likely only, debate of the 2016 election, in an event sponsored by The Arizona Republic and Arizona PBS.

The debate between Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick and Sen. John McCain will be held on Oct. 10 at 7 p.m. in the studios of Arizona PBS. The candidates will discuss foreign, domestic and regional issues.

The moderators will be Arizona PBS’ Ted Simons and The Republic’s Yvonne Wingett Sanchez. Questions for the candidates will be chosen by the moderators and editors of sponsoring organizations, as well as suggested by the public through social media.

The debate will air live on Arizona PBS, and Facebook/azcentral.

So a single debate in a TV studio without an audience of voters allowed to ask the candidates questions. That John McCain is one courageous guy, isn’t he? He will only appear in front of his political base, the McMedia.


  1. For sure not Tom “In his post here, for example, he’s falsely portraying undocumented immigrants as somehow more crime prone that say, stupid racist white folks, something that is not supported by the facts.

    I did look it up. Uniform crime reports. Assembled all the data for Maricopa County. Here it is again. I’ll just use one data point to make it easy for you to see:

    Car Thefts in 2007 32,521
    Maricopa County 2014 10,721
    Change 21,731 down 67%

    That’s a small city of cars. Most of them are cars belonging to Hispanics so the benefit of crime control is antiracist, contrary to your diatribe.

    For you and I to get our car stolen is an inconvenience, an insurance claim. For a low income person to get their car stolen is devastating. It can result in them losing their job and their family.

    These are the facts, facts that researchers can no longer even utter because political correctness is so severe. So you can’t “look it up” by going to research journals. You have to go to data sources themselves.

    Look at you. You go on an out of control racist diatribe because I point out that immigrants and citizens can live together in economic peace and because I point out that the crime issues associated with illegal immigration can be brought completely under control with still very high levels of immigration.

    We still have about 870,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, less than 100,000 left in the economic downturn and our crime rates are below national averages – something not true seven years ago.

    That’s how severe your political correctness has become.

    This data comes from the FBI uniform crime report.

    • Real economists know that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes.

      Real economists know that undocumented immigrants are a net plus to the economy.

      Real economists know that racism hurts the economy.

      Stating facts is not being PC.

      Real economists also know that John “The PuppetMaster” Huppenthal’s racism is well documented.

      I’d like to stay and help learn how to pronounce words, but I have a busy day putting all the un-flattering stuff you took out of your Wikipedia entry back in.

      • FSNT, while you’re updating the Wikipedia entry, could you throw in a few links to some of my posts from a few years ago? It’ll help drive our readership numbers.

      • “Real economists know that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes.”

        Can you cite your source for this? It sounds more like an opinion than a fact.

        • Sure. Here’s a quick one.

          That took all of three seconds with a web search, something I keep hoping you’ll learn how to do for yourself.

          But until you do, please, by all means, do the Conservative thing and benefit from the labor of others, and trust your “feelings” more than facts.

          FYI, here’s my favorite quote from this particular article:

          “Some people claim that illegal immigrants represent an assault on our sovereignty. If this is true, then it might be the first time in world history that a country has employed its invaders.”

          And before you whine about your preconceived notions being challenged, learn to use the freakin’ internet.

          • I already knew the answer to the question, Not Tom. It was just that you stated it with such absolutism as an article of “PC” faith that I thought it would be good to challenge you. Complacency can settle in too easily especially where facts “that everybody knows” are concerned.

            Where growing as a person is concerned, I appreciate the excellent advice. I try and do that all the time. I don’t think we ever finish learning and expanding our horizens and growing as a human being until the day we die. Up until then, each day is a new opportunity for improvement and excitement. I think that is why I find it hard to sleep sometimes…I look forward to the next day and the new things I will encounter way too much.

          • Oh! If only reality was “PC”, then “PC” wouldn’t be so misguided and stupid so often. On the contrary, people who are “PC” usually look at the world in ways that defy reality. Sometimes “PC” and reality do align but when they do it isn’t because the adherent is looking for reality. When “PC” and reality align it is pure happenstance because the orthodoxy of “PC” will always prevail if the is a conflict.

          • Again, I wanted to know your source. It is customary that one who makes a declaration should also defend it. Of course I can look up that information myself but that doesn’t tell me where you are getting your information.

            “Some people claim that illegal immigrants represent an assault on our sovereignty. If this is true, then it might be the first time in world history that a country has employed its invaders.”

            The Romans in the Western Empire employed many thousands of Huns, Goths and Visigoths prior to the final invasions that finally destroyed the Western Roman Empire.

            By the 3rd Century AD, the Roman Army had more Gauls, Britons, Huns, and Goths in it’s ranks than it had Romans.

            The Han Chinese Empire employed many thousands of Mongols prior to the arrival of Ghengis Khan who destroyed their Empire.

            There are numerous historic examples where invaders have been gainfully employed and utilized for many, many years prior to a subsequent major invasion.

          • What, do you think we wouldn’t actually read your citations, that we would just take your word, or the newspaper articles word for what it says?

            Its obvious that you haven’t read and thought about the research cited in the stories you linked.

            Here is a quote that popped out after just reading the first two:

            Using data from the Uniform Crime Reports and the Current Population Surveys, we find, in the cross section, that cities with high crime rates tend to have large numbers of immigrants.

            Using Bob Lord’s thinking on economics, case closed.

            However, this isn’t even true for the case we are looking at. The cities of Maricopa county with still very large levels of immigrants, have crime rates below national averages. Now, not in 2007.

            But, unlike you, I am a truth seeker. The main study in your article, An Examination of First and Second Generation Immigrant Offending Trajectories, has over 200 citations.

            I am going to read them all to understand, at a very granular level, why these studies were totally unable to predict the dynamics of Maricopa county. In Maricopa county, you had three things happen simultaneously. 1) A housing and economic crash and 2) a change in criminal enforcement 3) E Verify which shut down a huge portion of the economy to illegal immigrants.

            These simultaneous events revealed that in 2007, illegal immigrants had extraordinary levels of criminality. Murders quickly declined by 47%, car thefts by 67%, DUI’s deaths of young children by 50%.

            You will quickly brand these facts as racist but they are antiracist. Almost all of the beneficiaries of this crime reduction were low income Hispanics.

            This is what researchers qualify as a natural experiment. It is an extraordinary one.

            As a result of these events, we had a sudden and large change in the number of illegal immigrants and a significant behavioral change in larger number of illegal immigrants because their probability of being deported changed significantly. The penalty for being an habitual criminal and a drunken driver went from three days in jail to the devastation of deportation.

            By the way, I haven’t visited by Wikipedia in years. And, who cares? I am a nobody now. Your behavior reveals your inner turmoil. You committed crimes and you know it. You betrayed and you lied and you scream the lie louder and louder to cover yourself.

            But, unlike you, the people who visit this blog read and think.

          • I post links so you can check them, Falcon-Nein, that’s the point.

            Otherwise, nice incoherent rant. 5 stars.

            Along with the reality that undocumented immigrants are a net benefit to the US economy, I can personally attest that none of the dozens of undocumented immigrants I have known personally over the years is a criminal.

            Now, using public resources to troll the web, that’s a little crime-y. Know anyone who does that?

            But never-mind, it sounds like your more on a mission to justify your racism more than seeking truth, and I’m wasting valuable time here talking to the SockPuppetMaster when apparently I should be out committing crimes.

            Now, if I could only remember what crimes I’m supposed to be committing….

          • Actually, just like John Huppenthal, I’m an anchor baby.

            I suspect you’re an anchor baby as well, what say we go down the street to the Gila River Indian Community and ask the tribe to be sure.

          • Well, you have to go back mucho generations, but somewhere along the way someone was an anchor baby. Someone had to arrive here in order to steal the land from the native americans, right? And my ancestors were among the original thieves, I guess.

        • Shoot, my response is waiting moderation, most likely because of too many links.

          Do a web search on Google/Bing/Yahoo or better yet

          immigrants less likely to commit crimes

          Then report back to the class.

          FYI, as a young man, I worked in the trades, roofing, remodeling, sweating. I lived with and worked with and went out for a beer or two after work with lots of undocumented immigrants.

          Some of the nicest, most family focused, hardest working people you’d ever meet.

          Why you think they commit crimes more than white folks is a mystery to me.

          But I know why you think that, Steve. Own it.

          • I never said I thought illegal immigrants committed more crimes, Not Tom. That is your shibiloth that you keep trying to project onto me. I assume it makes you feel better for some reason, but it isn’t my problem.

            I asked the question because you made the statement with such certainty that I wanted to know what your source for the information was. It’s not especially complicated.

            Instead of inquiring “immigrants less likely to commit crimes”, what do you think would happen if you inquired “immigrants more likely to commit crimes”? I ask that because many times the answer you receive is based on the question you ask. It is one of the problems with polls because you can arrive at a predetermined outcome simply based on the questions you ask. Perhaps that is what you are doing here.

            As an aside, I did find it interesting that, while I was discussing legal residents versus illegal immigrants, you felt it necessary to narrow it down to “white folks” out of the clear blue. Is that because you were concerned about including other races in the comparison because their crime rates might be so much higher, or is just you dislike “white folks” so much? And why use the perjorative “white folks”? Do you find it humorous to throw around racial slurs or are you just some kind of racist against whites?

          • Why do you think immigrants committing less crimes needs a source?

            Based on what did you question me in the first place?

            Why do I have to prove some racist thing your imagination made up is wrong?

            And please don’t say “I never said xxxxx, I just asked why you said zzzzz”, don’t be a weasel, it’s boring.

          • “Why do you think immigrants committing less crimes needs a source?” “Based on what did you question me in the first place?”

            Because that smacks of political correctness. And the way you ask the question when searching the internet smacks of political correctness. You want a particular outcome so you set the entire question up in such a manner so as to achieve your desired outcome. Political correctness is nothing more than a closed mind and – based on what you write – I strongly suspect you are driven by PC.

            “Why do I have to prove some racist thing your imagination made up is wrong?”

            This fixation you have on racism, and the speed with you brand others with it, is your problem, not mine. It is an easy way to dismiss those with whom you disagree, and it does allow you to live within the comfortable confines of your “PC” world. However, it also limits your thinking greatly.

            “And please don’t say “I never said xxxxx, I just asked why you said zzzzz”, don’t be a weasel, it’s boring.”

            And why would I allow you to put words in my mouth and claim I said things I didn’t say? I am not going to allow you to limit the conversation so as to guide it where you want it to go. I have mentioned many times in past correspondence that you have a tendency to stray from the topic at hand. Besides if requiring you remain true to the discussion topic is “boring”, then I would have to attribute that to your unwillingness to look outside the “PC box” that makes up your world. In other words – again – your problem, not mine.

          • Just look at the Maricopa county data. It is unbelievably powerful. You are in denial. So are your researchers.

          • Well, alrighty then, big guy, if you say so, then it’s settled.

            I guess we’re down to the “nuh-uh” style of debate.

      • Pathetic. And false. Being virulent opposition to welfare isnt proof of of racism it is evidence of antiracism. Welfare is a trap constructed by liberalsto keep the poor poor and minorities dependent.

        I went out and looked up those studies. The do very simple correlations between crime and illegal immigration. If John Lott tried to get away with that, a simple correlation between guns and crime, you would laugh hin out of the house.

        If these correlations were even close to true, crime rates would have changed very little 2007 to 2014 in Maricopa county. No collinearity problems for those years – a violent movement in data unexplicable by these models.

          • I suppose it is easier to try and insult and belittle him rather than answer his questions or address his points, huh?

          • Steve, you’re wrong on this. You can’t engage in discussion with John, because his insecurity gets too much in the way. He’s not capable of learning from anyone, because he insists on claiming intellectual superiority, even when he says things that are demonstrably wrong. You and I each will acknowledge a fair point made by the other. He won’t. Heck, he now doesn’t even acknowledge the comments he posted that cost him an election were wrong. Instead, he claims, we were wrong for not allowing him to keep Arizona voters in the dark about the subject.

          • Steve, go back and watch Falcon9’s tearful press conference on youtube for proof.

            The boy’s an incoherent mess, his “apology” quickly devolves into babbling about unrelated topics and bragging about how great he is

            By the end of the presser what little apology there was to begin with is in shreds.

            He’d been busted being a creepy, racist little online troll, acting like some 13 year old child, and not the great thinker and scholar that he endlessly claims to be.

            And I mean endlessly.

            You can see his interior conflict ripping him up inside in real time in that video.

            It’s the same thing he does here. Here’s a great example:


            My Dunning-Kruger comment is valid.

            And we should all thank Mr. Bob Lord for exposing someone so screamingly unqualified for office.

          • I apologize, Not Tom, I over reached on this one and spoke out of turn. Thank you for the additional information.

  2. Incumbents have always been ducking and dodging debates, regardless of whether they have a (D), (I), or (R) after their name.

    Hillary ducked a California debate against Bernie, Debbie Wasserman Schultz ducked against Tim Canova, Barbara LaWall ducked against Joel Feinman, and LD3 Dem Incumbents Gonzales and Saldate are ducking against me.

    This whole post reeks of high hypocrisy and the pot calling the kettle black. I’ll retract that last one if my opponents do end up debating, but I’m not holding my breath.

  3. The ironic thing is Douglas is close to having zero influence on ANY educational policy decisions in his state. The governor ignores her, the legislature listens to almost nothing she says. The various education interest organizations have her speak out of form, and then ignore her, with many attendees sitting on their hands. She still speaks like a one trick pony, talking up killing common core in Arizona, like this is some sort of accomplishment, when in reality, the adopted Arizona standards are 98% common core with a new label. But there are many districts in this State that are so partisan, no one with any different views can ever win. The tribalism is there, ironically in a state with an independent redistricting commission.

    • That is very good description of the reign of Diane Douglas! Thank God no one does listen. And I voted for her. I don’t know what I was thinking…

  4. ann kirkpatrick’s ad talks about her boots. if paul babeau shows up they will ask him if he is a member of nambla.

  5. Blog for Arizona might not have much influence with Republican candidates and how they campaign.
    On the other hand, I haven’t seen much discussion or analysis of the Democratic candidates on this site. Personally, I would like to see both Ann Kirkpatrick and Matt Heinz talk more about issues. I’m finding their tv ads fairly generic, and light on substance.

  6. What do they have to run on? Or course they’re in hiding.

    The first question they’ll be asked is if they support Trump. There is no good answer.

    Support a racist con man or Clinton?

    At the national level, among lots of other things, they promised to end Obamacare. Fail.

    At the state level, they promised jobs and growth, but Arizona is lagging behind Taxachussettes and the Communist State of California.

    If their policies were working, they’d be crowing, but after years of GOTeaP rule, they got nothin’.

    • One sparrow doesn’t make a spring: here is the gross domestic product data from the beginning of the tax cutting era in Arizona:

      1992 2015
      Mass 250,421 427,541 71%
      California 1,241,479 2,206,800 78%
      Arizona 116,883 261,100 123%

      millions of 2009 dollars, Bureau of Economic Analysis, St Louis Federal Reserve, FRED system

      It unlikely that Arizona will match this again because of the E Verify laws strangling growth and job creation. Neither Massachusetts nor California have E Verify laws. In fact, California prohibits the use of E Verify. Thus, their recent success in spite of their high tax environments, not because of them.

      • Let’s try that again:

        Year 1992 2015
        Massachusetts 250,421 427,541 71%
        California 1,241,479 2,206,800 78%
        Arizona 116,883 261,100 123%

        • Real economists don’t ever refer to per capita data, real economists do threshold analysis. Last time I checked, and I will check again, Arizona ranked 15th at creating jobs paying greater than $80,000 per year over the tax cutting era.

          That’s not top 6 as we ranked in Gross Domestic Product, but not bad.

          You were the ones crowing about Gross Domestic Product.

          Again, the states ranking in the bottom ten in tax burden (Arizona wasn’t one of them) in every decade of the last four decades blew away the states ranking in the top ten in taxation in terms of job growth.

          • Dumb shit, per capita is the whole point. Per capita is what tells you how well people are doing. China has a much higher GDP than Britain, but the average Brit has a better life than the average Chinese person. Are you really not able to follow this? Are you actually that much of a moron?

          • Well, its good to know that you feel that wealthy states have no obligation to create opportunity for the poor and the young, that they can be held to a lower standard.

            You are not talking about gdp per capita, you are talking about economic growth per change in capita.

            Implicitly this excuses high wealth states from having to be concerned about improving outcomes for poor and minorities with jobs. It also assumes that all growth everywhere is homogeneous – not even close. Threshold analysis is still the way to go, and Arizona ranks very well in expanding high paying jobs for the entire length of the tax cutting era.

          • Hmmm, there seems to be a small problem with your “thinking”.

            It’s called “reality”.

            I lived in California for 30 years. Like most Blue states, California gets back about 84 cents on the dollar from the fed. Arizona gets back about a dollar, thanks to McCain spending like a drunken sailor.

            Red states get back more than a dollar for every dollar they give, because Red states have GOTeaP led governments so naturally they’re poor.

            Wealthy states are usually Blue, like California and New York, and support poor states, which are for some reason usually Red.

            In California where I lived for 30 years, they never stop talking about day care, family leave, sick leave, health care, especially for the young and minorities, and passing laws in support. They push for minimum wage and lead the nation in women’s, children’s, and minority issues.

            They lead the nation on environmental issues, and pollution affects the poor and minorities more than wealthy folks who don’t live next to factories or mines.

            If you’re sick you don’t have much economic opportunity, do you?

            In Silicon Valley where I lived for 30 years, some cities are now turning away companies, and they jobs they bring, because they have no housing for more employees.

            While Arizona fights all the things that California does, and our economy shows the results. Lagging. Companies are not fighting to come here, despite your low taxes.

            So, I really need to ask, what world are you living in, because reality is not your friend, Sockpuppetmaster.

          • Not Tom, if you lived in the forward thinking State of California for so long, why did you choose to move to such a backward place as Arizona? I am not asking that with a snarky or sarcastic tone. I am genuinely interested in what made you move here. California is a physically beautiful State while Arizona, with it;s deserts, is kind of ugly. Salaries are higher in California and they really are low here in Arizona. California is a State where a liberal can take pride in what they have accomplished. Arizona isn’t. So, what made you move here? (Of course, I am assuming you live here in Arizona and are not participating in this blog from California).

          • Those are two very good reasons. When I retired from the Army, my wife and I decided to return to Arizona because my family was here, as well, while her family was more nomadic and was spread out all over. Unlike you, though, I am not a big fan of the desert. I like the green of forrests, but family is very important.

            Surely you knew you were in for some culture shock when you moved here, didn’t you? California (a State I love were it not for it’s politics) and Arizona (a State I accept because of my love for family) are very different, culturally.

          • “China has a much higher per capita GDP than Britain.” ??? Where did you get that? China has about a $7,000 per capita gdp and Britain has about $42,000 per capita gdp.

            gdp stands for gross domestic product

          • Okay, thanks for the per capita GDP numbers, dumb shit. Now, who has a better life, the average Brit or the average Chinese person? And that is true even though China has the higher GDP. See my point? It’s the per capita number that is appropriate for apples to apples to comparisons.

      • So you’re saying the e-verify system that you once bragged about supporting on this very blog in a reply to yours truly, is hurting Arizona?

        A rare moment of self reflection from Falcon9, a man who’s no longer using sway-do-nyms.

        • Ahhh, “sway-doh-nyms,” a blast from the past, and what a glorious past it was. Thanks for the memory, FSNT.

          You should check out what happens to ole Thuckenthal’s GDP numbers when you take population growth into account. You’re not going to believe this, but …. [drum roll] … the numbers point in the opposite direction once that adjustment is made.

        • Hey, I taught myself how to read that word and it stuck with me.

          Check your facts. Not only did I not brag about supporting E Verify, I pointed out that there was a positive correlation between immigrant labor and citizen job creation. For which all the reporters called me a racist.

          I pointed out that Texas is number one in the nation, by far, in economic growth, over the last 8 years, in significant part because of the economic strength that immigrants bring to that state.

          The screeching about immigrants is correctly based on crime and incorrectly based on economics. The economics concern is the “lump of labor” fallacy. An economic theorem known as Says law says that supply creates its own demand, as Texas makes obvious. As immigrants make money, that money gets spent, all of it creating jobs greater than the one the immigrant occupies.

          By contrast, the lump of labor fallacy believes that there is only so much labor to be divided up and immigrants take it away from others. The lump of labor fallacy is known as a fallacy for a reason, it is false. But, fervently believed.

          By contrast, the crime issues associated with illegal immigration are quiet real. Look at the following data on Maricopa County, 2007 to 2014.

          1. Murders down by 139 per year or 47%
          2. Car thefts down by a staggering 22000 per year or 67%
          3. Burglary down by 9,900 or 28%

          This data proves two things. First, illegal immigrants were involved in a tremendous amount of crime and most of the victims were other Hispanics. Two, that the crime can be controlled and crime rates can be below national averages with high levels of immigrant populations.

          That’s the problem, no one on either side has their brains engaged and is looking at the data to understand what it means.

          • John, you hit the nail on the head when it comes to the worst problem we face: the inability to even admit there IS a problem. The old adage for solving problems states “First, identify the real problem”. We can’t do that because political correctness prohibits an open and honest discussion that would allow us to even start to identify any problem that remotely touches on the PC “forbidden list”.

            As a sidenote, John, keep posting. I know you take a beating every time you do post something, but I like reading what you write and it usually leads to some spirited discussions. I hope you hang in there.

          • Steve, Falcon9 takes a beating because he’s an idiot and a racist, and racists, like pedophiles, have earned the scorn they get.

            In his post here, for example, he’s falsely portraying undocumented immigrants as somehow more crime prone that say, stupid racist white folks, something that is not supported by the facts.

            Undocumented immigrants are more law abiding the white folks.

            Look it up.

            In your post, Steve, you accuse people of not using their brains, and yet here you are, doing just that.

            And again, I put racists on the same level as pedophiles, Steve.

            All racists, Steve.

          • I don’t think I accused anyone of not using their brains. I did point out that people can often have a closed mind, which is not the same thing. And – if I may point out – “after debate polls” indicate I was correct…not many people changed their minds based on the debate.

            As to why John Huppenthal gets attacked here: I know why he does and it is because of the opinion people have of him here. I still enjoy reading the spirited responses his postings always bring out.

            As to you considering me a racist, well, Not Tom, there isn’t much I can do about that. As I said in my first paragraph, being intelligent and having a closed mind are not mutually exclusive.

  7. “…Diane Douglas was able to rely on Tea-Publican voters who reflexively vote out of GOP tribalism for anyone with an “(R)” behind his or name on the ballot.”

    How are the GOP voters different from the democrat voters who reflexively vote out of democrat tribalism for anyone with an “(D)” behind his or name on the ballot?

    “It demonstrates a fundamental contempt for the American democratic process of elections.”

    We have Hillary, Trump and McCain running for office. It is hard NOT to have a fundamental contempt for the American democratic process of elections.

    “The public has a right to know that the GOP is employing this tactic.”

    Given this election, do you honestly think that the public will care?

Comments are closed.