So you drew some dots and attempted to connect them to paint a picture of Randy Pullen selling out the initiative to raise money from the WakeUp crowd. That is not true.

Have a great trip!

Is that a bribe, a threat, or just verbage? Whatever the verbage the meaning is in the ear of the listener.

On the other hand, I am told that Pullen and his staff have been vocal about successful fundraising from those same interests over the last couple of months concurrently with their public statements against the Initiative. In fact, I think I read posts on this site stating that as fact.

That is interesting when put in context with statements from Sprowl(?) and others about a financial boycott ever since Pullen took office.

Little is coincidental in American politics – thats been the same since 1776. I have to leave town on business – hope that helps.

Accusing the other person of making personal attacks as the means to attack the other person instead of debating the issue is a debate style as old as time. It reminds me of the Dem art of calling someone a racist if they are for protecting our sovereignty and rule of law.

To quote John from an earlier post,
“An impressive display my friend(s). Impressive indeed!”

Who did Randy Pullen meet with from the “monied establishment”? We want names. You imply (and sometimes it is plainly said) that he is being bribed by these people, so who are they? If you are going to say that Randy Pullen is changing his position in exchange for money, then you must be specific. You claim that the dots are “visible” so point them out for us. Who offered the bribes to Pullen?

If you want to hide behind a false identity, fine… But if you want to use that false identity to hurl unsubstantiated charges at someone, then that is wrong. You might as well go to work for CBS or The New Republic. Great article on that disgusting practice here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/no_more_anonymous_please.html

You say you get angry when someone calls you a liar. So imagine how Randy Pullen gets to feel when someone calls him a traitor, a sellout, a liar, and worse. Support your claims or withdraw them. Its the manly thing to do.

Last post for awhile:

While I do get angry when I am called a liar, I get even angrier when people I know who are donating more in time and resources than anyone else in the Party have their integrity attacked unjustifiably. If you take Goldwater, Haney, Tuttle and the Prop 200/LAW & SOLE Initiative leaders, you truly have patriots who have done more over the last three to five years as volunteers for this state than any other similar size group of people in Arizona. They do not deserve such a cavalier backhand assignation from hirelings and others who have sacrificed much less.

As to Mr. Pullen, it would seem that common sense would have dictated that he meet with those who brought an overwhelming majority of the votes for his election and had supported him on his efforts in the fight against illegal immigration in addition to meeting with those who worked against his election and the Prop 200/LAW/SOLE Iniatives prior to going off on a tangent similar to Kyl’s actions earlier this year.

Instead he writes resolutions against their efforts, inserts the Party leadership in a public letter against those volunteers, appears in the RAG making derogatory comments, etc.

Again, this is such a change of direction for him, and it does come after a meeting with the monied establishment, and some people are connecting the visible dots. THat is their fault? They didn’t create the dots, they just look at the dots and connect them.

Insanity is cutting the throats of your long term friends while trying to build a stronger relationship with your enemies.

Thanks Tim and Party Guy for your efforts, I’ll see you down the road sometime in the future.

Seems pretty instructive to me.

Maybe you missed it because you were still too busy being angry at everything, but that was the point that a few folks have been trying to make. Discussion and debate yes… Beating people to death no…

Your last post was a good post, whether someone agrees with it or not, it was a good post. Compare that with your earlier rant about spending your time on a toilet and you’ll see more than a little difference.

That has been just a small example of everybody flying off the handle and losing their sense of reason. I’m reading posts where suddenly folks like Randy Pullen are traitors and sellouts who can’t be trusted and who have been bribed (successfully is the implication) just because they disagree with you (not you you, just the general you) on whether or not an initiative should be pursued. That’s insane. Let’s go back to thinking folks, not just emoting…

My point: why should we throw away an insurance policy that the Constitution provides us? One that can’t be changed at a later date. This is especially true with the statements and financial clout of Hamer, Sanders, AGC, Magruder, Click, etc. Don’t forget their threats against legislators who voted for 2779.

If the Initiative Executive Committee decides to stop collecting signatures and something does happen in the legislature, it will be too late to get the necessary signatures to qualify for he 2008 ballot.

Let’s go to scenario number two – worst case scenario. The D’s take a couple more seats in each house of the legislature in 2008 and are two years from another election. Where do you think those R’s will go them? Don’t forget that at least two of them have a business financial stake in this fight.At that point there will not be a chance to correct it for another two years.

Let me take your point on the lying. When I brought up his repeating the charge, he had the chance to say what you just said but he did not. In my life, that’s instructive.

And while I’d like to agree with your math just to be nice, the logic doesn’t hold up. You seem to have at least 3 GOP votes who say they want to flip. In Post #14 you say so. Konopnicki and “at least” 2 others. And you say that every Democrat will switch (according to your many sources at the Capitol). You also say that we only have a two vote margin on any vote. So by your math, we’ve already lost this vote. We lose all the Dems, can only afford to lose 2 Republicans, and are going to lose at least three.

I guess if the Governor’s intelligence was as solid as yours, she’d have called the special session already and flipped the bill.

Of course, its possible that John is right in Post #15 where he writes that the legislators know what will happen to them if they flip-flop on a bill supported by more than 70% of all voters. In which case the bill really is safe. And that’s a good thing… Frankly, Janet doesn’t want to get on the wrong side of this bill either, that’s why she signed it. She has defended its constitutionality as well. She won’t get her Senate seat flip-flopping on this bill either.

There is only a cushion of two Republican votes on any vote. We have only been talking about comments in the Press and other places of GOP members. There also have been comments by D’s who voted for the bill that they would not do so again. As I stated in Post 19 PP3, everyone I have talked with at the Capitol agree that most, if not all of the D’s will flip if their vote is a difference maker.

There were attempts to amend – gut part of the bill – by the D’s prior to the final vote and they failed by only two votes each. Remember that this was completed just prior to Sine Die. If you think that the D’s will not vote to gut the bill if they can get the two or three R’s to join them, I just think you are wrong. It happens multiple times each session where they will sign on to a bill they don’t like because they are aware it is not worth the trouble if it will pass anyway. It is a very dynamic situation that the final vote does not convey.

Look at the vote in the US Senate on the Comp. Immigration bill. Look how many Senators changed their votes after it was on the board when it became obvious it was going to fail regardless of what they did. The same type of process was happening on this bill.

My premise is rational, it just takes looking beyond what is obvious.

You also keep ignoring valid points just to repeat the points you want to try and make. You don’t have a “cushion of two” on this bill like you keep saying. The bill passed with 45 votes. You have a cushion of 14 or 15, or maybe even 16 depending on how you want to count it. 45 voted yes and 3 or 4 may want to change their minds? You’re ignoring the math just to argue. Again, not rational.