Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Latest Kyl ad-- jumps into Jim Pederson's shoes.

I just saw the latest Jon Kyl ad in which he promises straight talk about illegal immigrants.

He says that :

Border security should be tightened.
Employers should be punished if they hire illegal aliens.
No amnesty should be given, but families should have a chance to become legal.
Felons should not be given these opportunities.

Gee, isn't this part of the Pederson plan? As I recall, Jon Kyl had a plan a couple of months ago, and it was focused on asking illegal immigrants who were here to just go home and apply to come back in.

Sounds like Kyl has been reading the polls, so he is now abandoning his own (already dead) plan and adopting his opponent's plan.

I have a better idea if that sounds like a good plan. Vote for the guy (Jim Pederson) who has had it all along, even before the polls started showing that people supported these ideas.


shrimplate said...

That was probably part of Kyl's original campaign strategy: say next to nothing until your opponent takes a position, see how it polls, and then either steal it (if it's polling well) or unleash the talk-radio attack dogs (if it's not polling well enough.)

Politics, not principle. Typical.

Leonard Clark is probably the most principled person in this race, but it's unlikely he will attract enough money to face off Pederson in the primary.

Eli Blake said...


Leonard Clark wrote a long comment on one of the other boards I had on the Senate race. All I have to say is that I have not seen or heard anything from him, including ballot petitions. If he is even going to get on the ballot, he has to hustle (filing deadline is the middle of next month). For that matter, I've not heard of nor seen any of Verkamp's petitions up here either.

Eli Blake said...

And I might add, that it is technically possible for a candidate to say, only qualify for the ballot in one or two counties (especially if they are Maricopa and Pima) and still win the primary, but it would be writing off the accumulated votes of all the other counties up front, and further would be essentially a concession in the general that they were not taking the outstate counties seriously. And living in one of those, I would personally find such an attitude offensive, on top of which, for a Democrat to win, given the Republican leanings of Maricopa county and the fact that they are only partially offset by the Democratic leanings of Pima county, they have to get the rest of their margin by actually winning solidly in rural Arizona. It's possible (this is where Janet Napolitano came up with the extra votes she needed) but a candidate who won't even circulate petitions out here before the primary probably won't get very far in the general.

Eli Blake said...

Leonard Clark:

You are probably correct in that I have not had to qualify myself for any office other than P.C. so I have not acquainted myself with the state law on the subject. In fact, I do know that three counties are submitted for checking, but that candidates are generally expected to collect signatures in all counties (so that for example, I have passed petitions for most of the statewide candidates by now).

Probably I should become acquainted with the exact wording of the state law on this, but I have not. So don't consider anything I post on this blog (especially in the comments section-- I do vigorously research where necessary the main posts but comments are a different matter entirely) to be accurate legal advice.

My point on the petitions is this.