Comments on: Policing the Blogosphere – UPDATED http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/ Arizona Politics, News, Commentary and Information with a Blatantly Conservative Worldview Presented by an Alliance of Writers, Activists, Consultants and Government Insiders. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:06:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Willet Creek Dam: Lighten up, Francis | oldadobeworld http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-227638 Willet Creek Dam: Lighten up, Francis | oldadobeworld Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:15:38 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-227638 [...] I read this post on Sonoran Alliance, I employed to be reminded up of the scene from the Bill Murray comedy “Stripes” where [...] [...] I read this post on Sonoran Alliance, I employed to be reminded up of the scene from the Bill Murray comedy “Stripes” where [...]

]]> By: Conservative Majority http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-123087 Conservative Majority Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:53:40 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-123087 Quinlan represents a bunch of Democrats at small Chambers of Commerce that are bought off by city subsidies. They do not support the free market or less government regulation because they allow the City Council to sit on their board and pay their salaries. Farrell is just "six degree separated" from the Democratic Party...kind of like McCain's PAC to elect Pro-Napolitano Republican PC's. Quinlan represents a bunch of Democrats at small Chambers of Commerce that are bought off by city subsidies. They do not support the free market or less government regulation because they allow the City Council to sit on their board and pay their salaries. Farrell is just “six degree separated” from the Democratic Party…kind of like McCain’s PAC to elect Pro-Napolitano Republican PC’s.

]]> By: Rum, Romanism and Rebellion » Blog Archive » Conservatives Just Not Letting It Go, Part 1 http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-119971 Rum, Romanism and Rebellion » Blog Archive » Conservatives Just Not Letting It Go, Part 1 Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:15:46 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-119971 [...] it wasn’t necessary for their argument, and despite the chance to correct their mistake, they repeated the allegation about Goddard. This, by the way, is in a post called “Policing the Blogosphere” where they decry the [...] [...] it wasn’t necessary for their argument, and despite the chance to correct their mistake, they repeated the allegation about Goddard. This, by the way, is in a post called “Policing the Blogosphere” where they decry the [...]

]]> By: LD20 http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-118627 LD20 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:43:05 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-118627 David, I wish you did get a vote! You have your head on straight. David,

I wish you did get a vote! You have your head on straight.

]]> By: David http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-118602 David Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:00:12 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-118602 "Farrell", thanks for the response. I guess what is getting lost from the original post, at least as far as I read it, is that there aren't any good parallels between what Waring is trying to crack down on, and Pullen's name being on that mailing. Sticking Pullen into the other story seems to smear him and equate him with what the elected officials are doing when the two are quite different. I imagine that chairmen of every group (Fortune 500 down to the Elks Club) sign the official communications that they produce, but they escape your punch. You go from a post about a good bill to stop one thing, then detour to take a cheap shot at Pullen, apparently for spending $70. You claim that it makes no difference whether its $70 or $70,000, but it does make a difference. It makes a difference whether it is taxpayer money or not. It makes a difference whether the person is a public official or not. It makes a difference whether or not the mailing contains an appropriate message to the appropriate folks, or if its just shotgunned out to the general public. From the update, the mailing Pullen sent out went to some people who can't even vote for him, so the bad motives you attribute to Pullen for mailing it aren't even supported. The post seems to take offense at you using a legit issue as a platform for taking a cheap shot at a guy you don't like. "Farrell", I'm sure you're a good guy and you're probably just fine on any number of issues, but if you can't see the difference between the behavior that Waring is trying to crack down on and Pullen communicating to his Executive Board, then there isn't any point in trying to explain it. I suspect readers of this blog understand the difference just fine. In the meantime, you're welcome to support a candidate who I assume will NOT communicate with her Executive Board. After all, you would be "ideologically inconsistent" if you voted for a candidate who would then use party money to communicate with her Executive Board. I wouldn't support a chairman who doesn't communicate with his or her party though. Then again, I don't get a vote, so it doesn't matter what I think. “Farrell”, thanks for the response. I guess what is getting lost from the original post, at least as far as I read it, is that there aren’t any good parallels between what Waring is trying to crack down on, and Pullen’s name being on that mailing. Sticking Pullen into the other story seems to smear him and equate him with what the elected officials are doing when the two are quite different. I imagine that chairmen of every group (Fortune 500 down to the Elks Club) sign the official communications that they produce, but they escape your punch. You go from a post about a good bill to stop one thing, then detour to take a cheap shot at Pullen, apparently for spending $70. You claim that it makes no difference whether its $70 or $70,000, but it does make a difference. It makes a difference whether it is taxpayer money or not. It makes a difference whether the person is a public official or not. It makes a difference whether or not the mailing contains an appropriate message to the appropriate folks, or if its just shotgunned out to the general public. From the update, the mailing Pullen sent out went to some people who can’t even vote for him, so the bad motives you attribute to Pullen for mailing it aren’t even supported.

The post seems to take offense at you using a legit issue as a platform for taking a cheap shot at a guy you don’t like. “Farrell”, I’m sure you’re a good guy and you’re probably just fine on any number of issues, but if you can’t see the difference between the behavior that Waring is trying to crack down on and Pullen communicating to his Executive Board, then there isn’t any point in trying to explain it. I suspect readers of this blog understand the difference just fine. In the meantime, you’re welcome to support a candidate who I assume will NOT communicate with her Executive Board. After all, you would be “ideologically inconsistent” if you voted for a candidate who would then use party money to communicate with her Executive Board.

I wouldn’t support a chairman who doesn’t communicate with his or her party though. Then again, I don’t get a vote, so it doesn’t matter what I think.

]]> By: Farrell Quinlan http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-118584 Farrell Quinlan Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:41:58 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-118584 Really, my last word on this... I hope. "David," I do not concede the point, $70 or $70,000. I clearly stated in my response to Brett Mecum that I do not agree with his defense of the state party's communications practices over the last couple of months. But I will concede that his defense is fair and a worthy effort that people of good will could agree with. True, Randy Pullen is not a taxpayer-paid elected official and the money he's spending on these mailings (legitimately or not) is not government money. But you've got to grant me the right to draw parallels between the spirit of Sen. Waring's SB 1002 and the activities of a party official in the midst of a re-election campaign for a party post. Does what I dislike about the mailings, their timing and volume, constitute a crime or violation of some law? I don't make that claim. It's a judgment call... a leadership call... an indication of Chairman Pullen's stewardship of GOP donors' contributions. Look, Lisa James can make her case against Randy Pullen however she wants. Randy Pullen can counter and tell us (the state committeemen who will vote on 1/24) why he's deserves another term. But as a man seeking to lead a party that stands for fiscal responsibility in government, he should avoid any suggestion that he is taking unfair advantage of his access to the AZ GOP's treasurer for his campaign. Does Sen. Waring's SB 1002 go too far and trample on the 1st Amendment Rights of government officials? Maybe, I'm not making a legal argument in favor of it. Could it be tweaked and improved to ensure that freedom of speech is respected. Sure, that's why we have committee hearings and debate. My support for a high "wall of separation" between political self-promotion and taxpayer/donor funds is a moral/ethical one. Thanks for your constructive comments "David", I hope everyone who is following this little soap opera on "both" sides can unite in supporting passage of SB 1002. A quick e-mail to Sen. Waring (jwaring@azleg.gov) thanking him for his leadership and to your own lawmakers to urge their support of SB 1002 would be a great outcome of this dust up. FQ Really, my last word on this… I hope.

“David,” I do not concede the point, $70 or $70,000. I clearly stated in my response to Brett Mecum that I do not agree with his defense of the state party’s communications practices over the last couple of months. But I will concede that his defense is fair and a worthy effort that people of good will could agree with.

True, Randy Pullen is not a taxpayer-paid elected official and the money he’s spending on these mailings (legitimately or not) is not government money. But you’ve got to grant me the right to draw parallels between the spirit of Sen. Waring’s SB 1002 and the activities of a party official in the midst of a re-election campaign for a party post.

Does what I dislike about the mailings, their timing and volume, constitute a crime or violation of some law? I don’t make that claim. It’s a judgment call… a leadership call… an indication of Chairman Pullen’s stewardship of GOP donors’ contributions.

Look, Lisa James can make her case against Randy Pullen however she wants. Randy Pullen can counter and tell us (the state committeemen who will vote on 1/24) why he’s deserves another term. But as a man seeking to lead a party that stands for fiscal responsibility in government, he should avoid any suggestion that he is taking unfair advantage of his access to the AZ GOP’s treasurer for his campaign.

Does Sen. Waring’s SB 1002 go too far and trample on the 1st Amendment Rights of government officials? Maybe, I’m not making a legal argument in favor of it. Could it be tweaked and improved to ensure that freedom of speech is respected. Sure, that’s why we have committee hearings and debate. My support for a high “wall of separation” between political self-promotion and taxpayer/donor funds is a moral/ethical one.

Thanks for your constructive comments “David”, I hope everyone who is following this little soap opera on “both” sides can unite in supporting passage of SB 1002. A quick e-mail to Sen. Waring (jwaring@azleg.gov) thanking him for his leadership and to your own lawmakers to urge their support of SB 1002 would be a great outcome of this dust up.

FQ

]]> By: David http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-118573 David Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:08:00 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-118573 I checked out Farrell's response. Sounds like you guys win this round, but I noticed he took a parting shot that suggests that he doesn't plan on changing his style anytime soon. He writes "Fair enough. I stand by my concern that though arguably "OK" and technically defensible, the recent flurry of mail to state committeemen from the state party extolling Chairman Pullen's tenure was/is too much and borders on and might actually be an abuse of office. These relentless mailings implicitly seek to "make the case" for his re-election while hiding behind official communications from the party. I hated that practice when Rick Romley, on his way out as county attorney and preparing to run for other elective office, published his die-cut hagiography on the taxpayer's dime." So he concedes the point, but dismisses the difference as techincal, then goes back at the end with equating Pullen's behavior to those of elected officials operating with taxpayer's money. And he ignores that he's making a big deal out of less than $70. Oh well. I checked out Farrell’s response. Sounds like you guys win this round, but I noticed he took a parting shot that suggests that he doesn’t plan on changing his style anytime soon.

He writes “Fair enough. I stand by my concern that though arguably “OK” and technically defensible, the recent flurry of mail to state committeemen from the state party extolling Chairman Pullen’s tenure was/is too much and borders on and might actually be an abuse of office. These relentless mailings implicitly seek to “make the case” for his re-election while hiding behind official communications from the party.
I hated that practice when Rick Romley, on his way out as county attorney and preparing to run for other elective office, published his die-cut hagiography on the taxpayer’s dime.”

So he concedes the point, but dismisses the difference as techincal, then goes back at the end with equating Pullen’s behavior to those of elected officials operating with taxpayer’s money. And he ignores that he’s making a big deal out of less than $70. Oh well.

]]> By: David http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-118566 David Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:39:29 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-118566 That is a really long post, but its actually nice as a change of pace to read something so detailed. Most posts are usually brief, but this one really documents details. Nice work and thanks for taking the time. That is a really long post, but its actually nice as a change of pace to read something so detailed. Most posts are usually brief, but this one really documents details. Nice work and thanks for taking the time.

]]> By: Farrell Quinlan http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-118485 Farrell Quinlan Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:09:33 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-118485 Salve! Maximus. Thank you for your concern about the wisdom of running for and serving as LD20 chairman while also being a professional lobbyist. A good career move? We'll see. It seemed to work out pretty sweet for Ambassador P. Robert Fannin, a friend from his lobbying days and stint as state party chair. Again, my alleged apostasy on all matters immigration seems to infect every point STD (and Maximus) makes against me. The constant drip, drip, drip of that issue burns at the center of every argument. It's maddening. I guess it'll be with me for the rest of my life. So, in an effort to finally let this scab of a debate heal, I've posted (before I read this updated STD post and Maximus' comments) what I hope is a final blog entry on this matter over at http://willetcreekdam.blogspot.com/. I'm out. Farrell the Apostate [ah, fans of Roman Emperor Julian (A.D. 355-363) thought that appellation was retired, no more!] Salve! Maximus.

Thank you for your concern about the wisdom of running for and serving as LD20 chairman while also being a professional lobbyist. A good career move? We’ll see. It seemed to work out pretty sweet for Ambassador P. Robert Fannin, a friend from his lobbying days and stint as state party chair.

Again, my alleged apostasy on all matters immigration seems to infect every point STD (and Maximus) makes against me. The constant drip, drip, drip of that issue burns at the center of every argument. It’s maddening. I guess it’ll be with me for the rest of my life.

So, in an effort to finally let this scab of a debate heal, I’ve posted (before I read this updated STD post and Maximus’ comments) what I hope is a final blog entry on this matter over at http://willetcreekdam.blogspot.com/.

I’m out.

Farrell the Apostate
[ah, fans of Roman Emperor Julian (A.D. 355-363) thought that appellation was retired, no more!]

]]> By: R S http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-118484 R S Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:51:07 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-118484 ...that want to crush capitalism and tell businesses who they can hire... Maximus You betcha we do. There are immigration and employment laws in this country. When I go to work, I still have to obey the law. So should you so quit your snivelling and follow the law or find a different investment. …that want to crush capitalism and tell businesses who they can hire… Maximus

You betcha we do. There are immigration and employment laws in this country.

When I go to work, I still have to obey the law. So should you so quit your snivelling and follow the law or find a different investment.

]]> By: Disgusted http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-118424 Disgusted Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:55:12 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-118424 I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I?

]]> By: West Valley Guru http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-118331 West Valley Guru Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:41:59 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-118331 But I still don't get how he can compare a report from Pullen that costs so little and serves a legit purpose with these bogus ads that are nothing more than an excuse to build name id for politicians. Does Quinlin really think that Randy Pullen needs to build name id with his own Executive Committee? They're simply not the same. But I still don’t get how he can compare a report from Pullen that costs so little and serves a legit purpose with these bogus ads that are nothing more than an excuse to build name id for politicians. Does Quinlin really think that Randy Pullen needs to build name id with his own Executive Committee? They’re simply not the same.

]]> By: West Valley Guru http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-118330 West Valley Guru Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:39:59 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-118330 Okay Maximus, I'll agree with you and call Quinlan an Arizonan! I hope that helps. Okay Maximus, I’ll agree with you and call Quinlan an Arizonan! I hope that helps.

]]> By: Maximus http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-118324 Maximus Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:21:20 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-118324 As a lobbyist, Quinlan has a lot of balls to 1) be a district chair - that is sure gain him some political enemies, which are not an asset in his buisness 2) he takes a position in the contest for chairman - another way to risk gaining enemies. I dont know if those are the best moves for his business interests, but he has a backbone and he deserves to be called a Arizonan. Unlike the legions of spineless Mexican hating rednecks that want to crush capitalism and tell businesses who they can hire. Their next move is to change the constitution (the constitution they claim is sacred) so that they can choose who gets citizenship at birth. Maybe they will have some secret tribunal that judges which new births have access to citizenship. Then they will tell businesses that it is forbidden to move any jobs overseas, because jobs are for Americans, capitalism be damned. Any way, Quinlan should keep it up, Reagan and Goldwater had enemies in their day too. As a lobbyist, Quinlan has a lot of balls to 1) be a district chair – that is sure gain him some political enemies, which are not an asset in his buisness 2) he takes a position in the contest for chairman – another way to risk gaining enemies.
I dont know if those are the best moves for his business interests, but he has a backbone and he deserves to be called a Arizonan.
Unlike the legions of spineless Mexican hating rednecks that want to crush capitalism and tell businesses who they can hire. Their next move is to change the constitution (the constitution they claim is sacred) so that they can choose who gets citizenship at birth. Maybe they will have some secret tribunal that judges which new births have access to citizenship.
Then they will tell businesses that it is forbidden to move any jobs overseas, because jobs are for Americans, capitalism be damned.
Any way, Quinlan should keep it up, Reagan and Goldwater had enemies in their day too.

]]> By: Rum, Romanism and Rebellion » Blog Archive » When Pachyderms Collide… http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/01/04/policing-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-118284 Rum, Romanism and Rebellion » Blog Archive » When Pachyderms Collide… Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:17:16 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=3562#comment-118284 [...] Sonoran Alliance’s overlong attack on Republican activist Ferrell Quinlan: 1,264 words Quinlan’s loggorheic response on his own blog, Willet Creek Dam: 1,103 words [...] [...] Sonoran Alliance’s overlong attack on Republican activist Ferrell Quinlan: 1,264 words Quinlan’s loggorheic response on his own blog, Willet Creek Dam: 1,103 words [...]

]]>