« Here's What Really Happened to the Immigration Bill. | Main | The Decline Steepens »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As you said, in politics everything is connected to everything else. In fact, Coughlin and Highground ran the campaign for light rail in 2004, which is significant because that's part of the reason Cheuvront gave for needing the grant. There's no politics involved in light rail, of course, because light rail only connects a few people to a few places.

Wow, Ken is pretty delusional. Everyone is doing stuff against him just because they are all mad at him. Maybe if he wasn't such a hypocrit, he would see that a giveaway is just a giveaway no matter who it goes to. It sure seems to me that Cheuvront is a friend to the taxpayer, except when its tax money going to his buddies.

Senator Cheuvront has proven to be more conservative than some conservatives. His stance against public funding for private business is strongly supported by many of us mainstream conservative Republcans. The funding for the arts is something else. For many programs, only public funding keeps them going. Most conservatives do not believe in that - EXCEPT is special circumstances; such as building a symphony hall or fine theatre. Or, in providing equal treatment of all non-profits hurt by some other government action - like the foolish experiement in light rail which will cost us taxpayers billions of dollars and be a great cash hole for the rest of its existance. This is one Republican backing Ken Cheuvront when he is trying to accomplish the right thing.

Hasn't it been over a decade since Coughlin has been a significant part of a win for a major office?

I guess just like a singer, all you have to do is have a one-hit wonder (Fife) and you leech off that forever.

He's gotta be the Bob Shrum of Arizona politics. Let's get some new, talented blood on both sides of the aisle in Arizona. Btw, the Dems in AZ have the world's worst political strategists. I'll give credit where credit's due. The strategy of going after Basha in 1994 on the gay issue in the last week or two of the campaign was very smart. But that was thirteen years ago. And in 1994, a guinea hen could've won in Arizona if it had an "R" by it's name.

Very little money is allowed to help candidates win, professionally, but plenty is there to pimp issues under our "direct democracy" (ballot measures). Ballot measures pay tons more to consultants than candidate campaigns do. Tons. Corporate money. So where does the pro talent go? Where the money goes. So that sucks donor money and talent away from candidates, toward "issues" and therefore funds to individual heroic figures are shut down. What a shame, that was our only hope. Curtail the initiative process, and we'll see more talent running for office, sucessfully.

Greg, I know what you say about the recent results under Clean Elections, and its effect on conservatives v. liberals, but the money will find a way to influence public policy, and it won't be in $110 increments.

The comments to this entry are closed.