We elect a government of representatives to use both what we think combined with their best judgment to make decisions. The absolute worst form of government is straight up “democracy”.

Here’s a quick and dirty definition of “democracy”… two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for lunch. See the problem? It pits special interest against special interest each equipped with the latest marketing tools.

Putting a *temporary* tax increase to the voters is like, well … putting a *temporary income tax* before the voters. Last time that happened we wound up with a Federal Income Tax that turned out to be anything but *temporary*.

Putting this proposed tax increase before the voters is straight up poor leadership. Why? Because it relieves the Governor of having to make a decision and, like Pontius Pilate when he washed his hands, he left the decision up to the mob.

Why would any elected individual in a leadership position pass on the “Buck Stops Here” position? So, when the tax increase fails to solve the problem, the elected official can say; “The voters made me do it.”

And, like the Garden of Eden, the guilty parties will pass the buck back down the line, never acknowledging the error of their ways.

As for the dueling polls? Pick your poison, neither is worth the paper its printed on except for propaganda purposes.

#11 above: the precise language of the poll questions, while the ARP only gives you a narrative recap … You hit the nail on the head Amigo. You go to the head of the class.

You want a real poll? Select 1220 voters from the 2008 primary voter rolls who voted. Make sure each party is represented in proportion to their registration figures and voting pattern. Then ask two simple questions:
“Should Arizona your increase taxes to address the state’s financial disaster?” Yes / No
Would you vote for a tax increase that you were assured by the Governor and the Legislature was only temporary?
Yes / No

I’ll bet anyone a drink at Seamus McCaffrey’s the “NO’s” will win by at least 65:35

By the way, it was pointed out but you might have missed it. The Kinski poll used high efficacy voters and polled 600 people statewide. The AFP used random people in Phoenix and Glendale.

I don’t see how pointing out that Chewy has a tendency to misinterpret his subject matter (and in the process makes SA look foolish and amateurish) amounts to a personal attack. I haven’t attacked him (them?). I’ve said the content of his argument is weak. And judging by the reaction around here, I’m not the only one with opinion.

Do you trust the methods of Kinski, High Ground and their client ARP (PS: the client always has great influence on the specific language of the poll questions) over the methods of Rasmussen Reports, who is recognized as the leading national pollster by most people, who is doing the polling without a client bias?

Of interest is the fact Rasmussen released the precise language of the poll questions, while the ARP only gives you a narrative recap of the results. wonder why??

Also, Rasmussen was of likely voters, while the ARP poll did not state the universe polled as far as I have read. For political impact, especially in a Primary, likely voters is a more valid group.

By the way, it’s hard to argue Pullen is a “solid R” anymore if he’s also backing the tax increase. While Brewer is responsible for representing the entire state, Pullen only represents the R’s, and he’s doing a poor job of that if he’s out backing a tax increase.

On another note, this site has no more reputation than a typical corner of any public square. Maybe there’s a tradition, a string of opinions, but a real reputation? No such thing. SA is a street corner frequented by certain types, who could all be gone tomorrow and replaced by others, or loiter around forever. Patterson’s site is different because it’s all him on his own speaking with one voice.

Comments like yours which are nothing more than personal attacks are what hurt this site. If you don’t have any substantive criticism then please keep it to yourself. Some of us actually enjoy the debate that has been taking place between the two blogs on this.

You spin yourself around in your arguments which actually goes straight to your level of intelligence. You say Coughlin is trying to push an agenda but yet completely ignore the fact that the entire purpose of AFP is to prevent taxes at any cost. Your one sided argument is clear to anyone with a 3rd grade reading comprehension. Evident in your previous posts (NBA All Star)- you might have skipped a grade or two.

In the larger picture, Chewie has a right to bring up concerns over conflict of interest. Those concerns may or may not be valid, but the discussion has merit. If you get paid as a lobbyist, don’t expect the lake to be like glass all the time. Turn your canoe upwind and man up.

With regard to Expresso Pundit. Greg is a good man with good intentions. He chooses to run his blog his way and that is his prerogative. It is however unfair and perhaps a bit catty to become high brow.
What we have here is an apple and orange. SA and more so SR, don’t sugar coat the cereal. These are conservative blogs that don’t mind getting in the mud if need be, which is both entertaining and informative. EP does a lot of feel good pieces and drives deep into journalism gossip which is fine but not of keen interest to all. To each their own.

If politicians are reviled by the public, how much worse are the parasites who feed from their droppings?

Carefully dissect the poll statistics then dig back into your old grad school stat book.

Could it be that the Az Republican Party is infected with parasitic political consultants such as Gordon James, Chuck Coughlin, Nathan Sproul, John Echols, or Chad Willems?

They care not a whit about “the party” but rather the hefty paychecks to be generated by satisfying the political lusts of men and women in elected office who’s only aim in life is to remain in power no matter the cost.

Could it be?

Judging from your NBA All-Star post, reading comprehension is not your strong point.