« Arizona Schools Better than Half the Nation | Main | The Answer: 2010 or 2014. »


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

So can anybody explain why Ed Ebleser's Young Democrats weren't cited for stealing signs in District 17?

Huppenthal was unfairly targeted. End of story.

Because your signs were illegal Jim, the one Huppenthal took wasn't.

Um, weren't they your signs? Thus the constant whinning about it. Your sad attempt to drum up business for your sign business. And weren't you a Democrat until Democrats refused to hire your company for sign holders and they you switched to a Republican because you found a certain chandler Republican who would pay.

My signs were legal. Just a fact, but your ignorance and attitude knows no bounds, so think what you may. Had nothing to do with business. I don't even know how it could be useful in that respect.

I changed registration from R to D in 2002 (?) upon deciding Bush was outspending any Democrat in history. I then "flip-flopped" to R in 2008 after seeing that D's in AZ are never going to solve the problems they create and prefer to campaign on lies rather than constructive plans. See our last few budgets ala' J-No.

I've never changed my positions to pander to a crowd, but I do know that one former Senator party shopped and was kicked to the curb because it was "all about him" and not really about fixing a thing.

I'm actually consistent. No problems there. I just see the law was applied differently to two very similar cases.

Don't try the attorney angle. You're not very good at it.

Don't know if the sign smearing Huppenthalwas legal. The Democrat party took in over $100,000 in contributions of "less than $25" enabling them to hide the true contributors. These contributions were washed through an outfit in New Jersey.

The sign smearing Hupp was legal. Unfortunately, it was just all part of the D effort to lie and smear it's way into power.

Not that Rs always do the right thing, but the J-No effort was in really poor taste and not done well.

The beauty of all the sign and junk mail monkey-business is that it is bank-rolled by tax-payer money.

If not directly, then by the fact that donors don't have to give to a candidate, they can spend money on opposition signs and hit-piece mailers.

When we will people learn that the Democrats only want in office for the power and the ability to spend other people's money for their own purposes.

Being a little tyrant with anger management problems did not get Mr. Huppenthal found guilty this time but it sure is something that he should be ashamed of...as well as the people who vote for him.

Same old juvenile falsehoods, RsMantra. The only one with anger management problems is Slade Mead. Every Huppenthal sign within 4 miles of Slade Mead's home was stomped and shredded.

Hummm.. I watched Slade lose control at a district meeting once. Just saying.. he was very inappropriate in my opinion.

"Because your signs were illegal Jim, the one Huppenthal took wasn't."

The property owner would beg to disagree with that, being that they gave permission to Hupp to remove the illegally placed sign.

I don't really think the Democratic Party has the capability to orchastrate the drama that unfolded with Huppenthal and that old lady; they're not that good. I have to say, watching Huppenthal arguing with that old woman was beyond pathetic. And excuse me, but the property manager should have been the one to remove the sign, NOT THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE. Unfortunately, while the Arizona Multihousing Association does a good job getting properties to display endorsed candidates' signage, they do a poor job educating property managers on appropriate policies for campaign sign removal. Huppenthal may not have done anything illegal because he had the owner's permission, but common sense would dictate he shouldn't have been the one to take it out. And for pity's sake-it was one sign. Didn't he have anything better to do on election day than make a fool of himself?

Not to turn this into an anti-Slade Mead post (ok, yes I will), but he has some serious psychological issues. He is extremely unstable, a backstabbing liar and a disgrace as a politician. He is a scumball of epic proportions and anyone who votes for him needs to really take a closer look at what he offers the public as a representative of them.


While I can agree with you about my feelings towards him as a person, I want to point out that after losing his Senate re-election bid and losing the School Superintendant primary, I don't think he's stupid enough to want to get beat up again.

The comments to this entry are closed.