SurveyUSA has the latest 50-state tracking on Governor approval/disapproval numbers. Janet is at 65% approve, up 4 percentage points from October. The MOE is +/-3.9%. The trends all year have been mostly positive.

What I find most interesting is that her approve number is the same for both men and women. In the past, men have actually been more likely to approve of her job than women. This is akin to when I earned identical scores on the math and verbal sections of the SAT's. It speaks to her remarkable balance and appeal.

54% of Republicans approve of her job, very good in such a nastily partisan state with such a nastily partisan Republican-held legislature. Even 53% of self-proclaimed conservatives approve of our Governor.

Nearly identical numbers in the populous Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas - 67% and 66% respectively - approve of the job she's doing. This is especially good news in terms of re-election numbers, since Phoenix is so heavily-laden with registered Republicans.

On the other hand, this may diminish the perceived importance of Tucson in the next statewide election. We were credited with winning the election for her the first time and she didn't totally ignore non-Maricopa County as a result, as previous Governors have done. I do hope she remembers where her base is...

Here's a picture of Legislative District 28 from the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission website: Click here.

As you can see, the district is most of central and east Tucson. Definitely not a representative sample of the larger CD8, in fact the geographically smallest (but one of the most populous) legislative districts that composes the Congressional district: Click here.

This popular quote from JFK's inaugural address has been sitting with me since Kolbe's announcement earlier this week and my irritation about the annointing of a Democratic replacement:

We choose to go the moon in this decade and the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

Whoever runs and wins the primary should be doing so because anything worth winning is not worth winning easily. This is why I support those who made the decision to run before the announcement.

It's the very spirit of the party.

In light of Jim Kolbe's retirement announcement earlier this week, several prominent local Democrats have been touting the prospects of State Senator Gabrielle Giffords.

While I genuinely like her and, being one of her constituents, have voted for her for as long as I've lived in her district, I'm still not convinced the conventional wisdom is all that accurate.

For starters, getting elected in legislative district 28 is a lot different than getting elected in Congressional district 8. While LD28 trends significantly Democratic, CD8 trends moderately to the Republican side.

According to the Pima County Recorder's website, there are 39,422 Democrats, 25,835 Republicans, 970 Libertarians, 562 Greens and 24,402 Independents/Others registered to vote in LD28. Democrats comprise about 43% of the electorate in the district, a plurality.

By contrast, in CD8, there are 107,922 Democrats, 150,942 Republicans, 2,291 Libertarians, 773 Greens and 80,128 Independents/Others registered to vote. Democrats are only about 34% of the electorate in the Congressional district. Republicans hold a 48% plurality in the district.

Legislative District 28 is not a microchosm of the Congressional district of which it's a part. Winning the legislative district, no matter how big the margin, is not a harbinger of ability to win the Congressional district. Gabby won LD28 with 64% of the vote in 2004; Kolbe won CD8 with 60%. Gabby's Republican colleague in the state Senate, Toni Hellon, who is another frequently-discussed candidate for the now-open seat, ran unopposed last year and won her district, LD26, with 99% of the vote.

Of course, part of the problem with Legislative districts in Arizona is that they are so partisan that those elections are won or lost during the primaries. And Arizona voters are general loyal partisans in general elections. This is why the Independents become electoral gold in the eyes of candidates every cycle. Even so, the party with the registration advantage in any given district is more likely than not to win those elections. The actual influence of Independent voters in Arizona elections is marginal.

But back to the CD8 '06 Democratic horserace...

I really don't appreciate the rich and powerful members of the party automatically annointing Senator Giffords without even acknowledging that there are at least two other people who have already stepped up to the plate. They deserve a lot of credit for being willing to step up to the plate and take on the Goliath that was Jim Kolbe's machine in CD8. A Democrat only considering a run now that Kolbe has retired is, to me, opportunistic at best.

I've not been kind here to Eva Bacal and her Kolbe-opponent predecessors, but I do believe they all deserve a tremendous amount of credit and respect for being willing to put themselves up against a relatively popular incumbent. If you think you can win in the district, it shouldn't matter whether or not the incumbent is running again.

And so I am much more likely to support Jeff Latas or Francine Shacter - or even Dwight Leister - in the upcoming primary battle than I am my own representative from the state Senate.

There's principle and then there's that elusive concept of "electability." I think among the three already-declared candidates, there's at least one who can fulfill my requirements for both principle and electability, even moreso than Senator Giffords.

When I first saw RENT ten or so years ago on Broadway, I was, to put it mildly, underwhelmed.

Jonathan Larson's opus is too kinetic for the static staging it received at the Neiderlander Theatre.

So I was pleasantly reintroduced the show at the opening night of the film version tonight. The musical is really much better suited to film.

With most of the original cast reprising the roles that made them famous (in some circles), the characters were realistic. Despite an unfortunate resemblance to a John Tesh video during "What You Own," the bohemian vibe was entirely credible.

I haven't lived anything close to a bohemian lifestyle in quite some time. The couple of months I did weren't exactly pleasant, though not necessarily as a factor of bohemia and more a part of the drama going on in my life at the time.

That aside, I've always been a little envious of those who could be credibly considered bohemians. They've tossed convention aside and create communities of intellectuals and artists who see the world from a perspective altogether shunned by many of the circles I frequent (willingly and not).

Besides my envy, which is superficial, bohemians elevate my guilt. I know guilt is not useful, but I'm Jewish so it's inescapable.

So even though I like to believe that I'm doing world-changing work, I have to ask myself what I've done lately to that end. I work for a professional, corporately-structured-though-non-profit organization. We do provide some vital services, but we do very little to change the status quo.

My volunteer work is much the same. I don't actually do much to make the world a better place. And it kills me. I've lost my connection to my activist spirit.

I'm more bourgeois than I've ever been, which is really saying something given my middle-class upbringing and private college education. I really don't enjoy it. I don't really know how to be anything else in Tucson though. Tucson has a way of shutting activists down or forcing us into a professional culture that is by definition anti-activist.

I know there's a Bohemia here, but I've never felt as welcomed in it as I have elsewhere. Besides, my neuroses about earning a living and even my preconceived notion of what "living" is have prevented me from taking risks in even approaching Bohemia.

Being an activist requires a certain amount of risk. I haven't taken any real risks in years, artistically, intellectually or socially. I wasn't always quite this risk-averse. I used to embrace the fringes; now I hardly even recognize them. I need to start making some changes.

I'm going to start every day asking myself how I plan to change the world that day and end the day asking myself if I did anything during the day to ease someone else's suffering or challenge their oppression.

It's not much, but it's a start. I hope it will help me find myself again.

Until then, at least I'll have la vie boheme.

It's official. Jim Kolbe is retiring from Congress at the end of this term.

I'd been ignoring the rumors swirling around this last week because they swirl around every odd-numbered year.

This means it's a whole new ballgame and the chances of a Democratic pickup may have improved significantly. Those chances depend a lot on the Republicans and whether or not they can recruit a moderate who can win the district in the primary against Randy Graf. More than usual, this election will be won or lost during the primary.

While I'm thankful that we're finally shedding ourselves of one out-of-touch, conservative-inmoderate's-clothing, I'll hold off on rejoicing too loudly until we see how both fields shape up.

MoveOn is also conducting an online survey about who should run on the Democratic ticket to replace Kolbe. If you have someone in mind, let MoveOn know.

I'm a little frustrated that the Star article didn't mention the two Democrats who have already declared their candidacies, Jeff Latas and Francine Shacter. They did however mention Eva Bacal, who lost badly to Kolbe last year. She's planning to run again (her chances would be better this time around, but I still think she's a lackluster candidate). Other contenders mentioned in the article were Tim Sultan (I still doubt he'd run) and Gabby Giffords (my very own state Senator and the one considered the frontrunner).

Running against an incumbent requires razor-sharp criticism and an aggressive posturing. Running for an open seat held by a member of another party requires some of that, but can also allow for some more nuance and softness. Where the Dems needed a pit bull of a candidate before, now they can settle for a German Shepard. This also gives the Democrats an opportunity to run a candidate with more blatantly progressive values than a closet progressive who could blunt some of Kolbe's perceived advantages.

Ironically, Kolbe's retirement is probably the best chance his party has to hold on to the seat because it reduces the Democrats' ability to make this election about Kolbe's loyalty to President Bush and the culture of corruption in DC.

Of this I am certain: it's going to be one hell of a ride!

A 25-year-old former teacher in Florida pleaded guilty to charges of having sex with a 14-year-old student, but she won't serve any time in prison:

Debra Lafave, 25, whose sensational case made tabloid headlines, will serve three years of house arrest and seven years’ probation. She pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious battery.

Those Florida prosecutors sure do know how to get the job done:

Fitzgibbons said in July that plea negotiations had broken off because prosecutors insisted on prison time, which he said would be too dangerous for someone as attractive as Lafave. He said then that she planned to plead insanity at trial, claiming emotional stress kept her from knowing right from wrong.

(emphasis added)

Are you kidding me? She couldn't go to prison for raping a child because she's too pretty? That's patently absurd. The prosecutors should have taken the case to trial. A jury would have seen through the emotional distress defense.

Why isn't anybody thinking of the emotional distress inflicted on the 14-year-old she had sex with? Lots of talk radio personalities and others have made jokes about how this wasn't a crime, it was every teenage boy's fantasy. The trauma may not manifest right away, but it will eventually and he will have to work through the ramifications of this woman's crime for a long time.

Debra Lafave should be in prison. The prosecutors failed. Justice is not served by this plea deal.

OJ Simpson whines about the criminal/civil justice system being unfair on the occassion of Robert Blake's being found responsible for the death of his own wife.

Simpson says someone ought to challenge the civil justice system itself before the Supreme Court. For all the time Simpson spent in the justice system, he sure doesn't understand it very well.

I'm not saying our system of justice is perfect. Far from it. It's a racist, classist system that penalizes some people while rewarding others. One of the reasons wronged parties can sue on the civil justice side is because criminals are being unfairly rewarded on the criminal justice end.

Had Simpson (and to a much lesser degree Blake) not been able to afford the crack legal team he hired in his criminal trial, he very likely would have ended up in prison, regardless of the merits of the prosecution's case. And racist cop Mark Fuhrman notwithstanding, it was actually a very solid case.

Still, Simpson's paranoia is almost laughable:

Simpson was acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, then was sued in civil court where a jury found him liable for their deaths and awarded damages of $33.5 million. In Blake's case, the jury awarded $30 million, a figure Simpson said was suspiciously similar.

"It was too coincidental," he said.

That's right, Orenthal, it's one big conspiracy to kill celebrities' wives and win large settlements in an elaborate, Rube Goldbergian scheme. That conspiracy theory might actually have a shred of credibility if Blake weren't white.

This part really got me, though:

Asked if he had any advice for Blake, he said, "If Robert Blake has friends and family around him, he'll do fine. I would give him the same advice I gave Michael (Jackson). You've got your kid. Go and raise your kid."

Does that mean that Simpson would ever let Jackson around his own kids? Makes me shudder. Next thing you know, Simpson will be announcing he told Kobe the same thing. That old boys club (or whatever in Jackson's case) is just creepy and strange.

Kind of makes you wonder how that search for "the real killers" is going now that Simpson is comfortably retired in Florida.

HuffPo:

Early this morning, so-called Republican moderates showed their true colors by falling in line with Tom Delay and approving $7.8 billion in loan cuts to college students, $4.9 billion in cuts to child support enforcement, $11.4 billion in Medicaid cuts, and a $796 million reduction in food stamp funding.

Jim Kolbe voted to rob his constituents of some of their most vital lifelines to pay his and his party's wealthiest contributors. This steal from the poor to give to the rich scheme has to stop.

It's time to clean house. This corrupt, self-centered, morally bankrupt cabal must go.

Much more of this and I say let's not wait till the elections next year - impeach Kolbe now! He's no longer doing the people's business and hasn't been for a while...

Kolbe voted today to pass the House's Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006, a vote that his side lost by a good margin.

The draconian spending bill would have cut food stamps, student loans, health services and education funding to states, among many other threads in the social safety net that many in AZ-08 depend on.

Fortunately for his constituents, 22 of Representative Kolbe's fellow Republicans were principled enough to realize how horrific the consequences of passage would have been. Siding with the entire Democratic caucus, they were able to beat back a truly terrible spending package that would disproportionately negatively impact those among us with the very least.

It's a shame District 8 doesn't have that same kind of principled leadership. Out of touch and out of time in Congress - let's send Jim Kolbe back to his fancy ranch next November.

Jeff Latas has officially declared his candidacy to unseat 11-term incumbent Jim Kolbe...and apparently there will be a contested Democratic primary in AZ08. Francine Shacter, a retiree, declared her candidacy on Monday.

At this point, my money's still on Latas. Shacter's website doesn't say much, but she does certainly speak to the old-school social and economic justice radical in me. And she gets bonus points for using "the tyrrany of the majority," a concept that dates back to pre-Revolutionary War days.

That said, Latas has the credibility, biography and flat-out fight to win. Also, Shacter's campaign address is for Princeton, NJ. She obviously needs to get a campaign headquarters in district to even have a shot at the nomination.

I want Latas to be the raging progressive I think he is, but I understand as a pragmatist that the words I want to hear would alienate enough of the voters in AZ08 to lose this race.

One comment on Latas' announcement post on DailyKos (linked above) noted that Kolbe's sexual orientation actually works to his advantage in this district. I believe this will be especially true this election cycle with the very draconian anti-marriage amendment sharing the ballot.

Latas should come out early against the amendment to blunt any real or perceived advantage Kolbe might receive.

Kolbe likely wouldn't be very loud about his opposition so as not to alienate his base. But Kolbe also always benefits from moderate voters who see his sexuality as a likewise moderating influence on him.

Latas being vocal in his (presumed) opposition to the so-called "Protect Marriage Arizona" amendment (which actually hurts marriage and doesn't help it) would force Kolbe into a no-win situation. If Kolbe also expresses his opposition, he has to run right on other issues to scrounge together enough moderate-right votes to overcome Latas' advantage from his military service. If Kolbe stays silent while his opponent is a better advocate for Kolbe's rights than Kolbe is, it exposes the incumbent as someone ashamed of who he is and unwilling to stand up for himself.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of "leadership" we've come to know and loathe in AZ08.

Forgive me for feeling a little Schadenfreude at the results of the Tucson City Council elections. Don't tell me you don't enjoy watching the climax of "The Wizard of Oz" when Dorothy throws that conveniently-placed bucket of water on the Wicked Witch.

With Kathleen Dunbar's election-loss meltdown, Tucson has reason to celebrate. Ditto for finally giving Fred Ronstadt the boot.

I've been on the road since early on election day (hit the polls, then hit the pavement), traveling with my best friend to a conference in San Francisco.

We got the great news over the phone from his partner, but I've been jonesing for a broadband connection to see the final numbers and enjoy the Wednesday-morning quarterbacking.

Mazel tov to Karin and Nina. Well-deserved wins all around.

So Kathleen Dunbar, incumbent City Council member up for re-election in four days and perennial right-wing nutcase, is suing her Democratic opponent Karin Uhlich, the county Democratic Party and three teachers and their spouses for "defamation" and causing "severe mental and physical anguish."

First of all, isn't Dunbar's party the one opposed to so-called "frivolous lawsuits?"

More importantly, wouldn't a lie have to be told to qualify as defamation? Dunbar does oppose impact fees (a position that boggles the mind) and she did interfere in the Amphi agreement. It's all well-documented.

Maybe I shouldn't say anything else, lest I get sued too.

My favorite part of the Star article was this, though:

"How can Tucsonans believe that I will stand up for them if I don't stand up for myself?" she asked.

A better question to ask would be, how can you ask us to vote for you to handle the pressures of governing when you can't even handle the regular grind of a campaign.

Grow up, Kathleen. Either stop whining and bring some substance to your campaign and the debate, or drop out of the race now and stop wasting our time.