Comments on: Thoughts on an Earlier Post

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:20:38 +0000

“….I don’t know if Brett has “enemies,” as he claims, who want to destroy his career. We know very little about the woman Brett was pursuing. Could she have been a Democrat trying to set him up?…”

Geez…Murkistanicals’ comprehension skills outsourced to India with our jobs?

The woman admits she’s a registered Repub voter…on the list of registered voters where he illegally got her personal info/address to crash his creepy self at a private home event.

And of course, SHE is protecting America as she said in her affidavit file against him.

As a matter of public record: There are 30 previous complaints filed against Mecum and his lack of ‘family values’ cohorts by others, mostly women.

By: DSW

DSW — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:29:57 +0000

All fairness to Brett, I don’t know where he stands on the issues so I can’t say if he falls into the category of being a RINO. What I do know is that I have seen many individuals in leadership of organizations who have been dismissed, fired, terminated, etc. over a lot lesser incidents. A board of directors typically expects “above reproach” behavior from its staff because they want the organization they represent or serve to succeed. Public perception is extremely important because it affects the organization’s ability to raise money and impact the community. If the Salvation Army’s CEO got caught in some form of unethical behavior, do you think the board would look the other way? If a high level staffer with Valley of the Sun United Way was involved in illegal or unethical activities, do you think the board would ignore it?

Hopefully, this blog has made the point that the Republican Party has got to get its act together and it starts at the core. At first, I held back on Carnelian Saloon’s earlier post but they and our readers convinced me it was important to keep it up and open for comments for the good of the party.

Seems to me a famous governor did the same thing when she realized what was going on in her party. So maybe we are going a little rogue here at Sonoran Alliance.

By: George Carney

George Carney — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:10:17 +0000

If Sonoran Alliance is a bathroom wall then Mecum has just peed all over it. Safe to say that Mecum is probably one the most hated people in politics in Arizona and Pullen is not too far behind. People mostly tolerate him because of his position that clearly went to his head. Executive Director of what? A party headquarters that is a ghost town because they have scared almost everyone off? There are stained carpets and paint cracking on the walls in the headquarters. It looks like an old strip club from the outside. Indside we have a Rino Executive Director that has been supportive of raising taxes in AZ? This train has derailed so long ago and we need to get it back on track. The corrupion and arrogance run rampant and the state party is the laughing stock of Washington DC. We need to clean house and be Reagan Republicans once again. I hear a petition is being taken out to remove Brett Mecum and Randy Pullen and already has significant backing of Conservative Republicans. As they said in the movie, The Hunt for Red October, “scuddle the ship.”

By: Conservative

Conservative — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:02:38 +0000

Bill,

DSW has censored plenty in the past on this site in the name of decency. Why don’t you give him credit for restricting a considerable amount that others have tried to post? I know he’s censored a couple of things I’ve tried to post before, which I understand since I was pointing out some personal flaws in politicians that he probably didn’t think were fair to be aired since they were “personal”. Sonoran Alliance is not a “bathroom wall” because DSW does delete a lot of the comments. Apparently you are Mecum or a friend of Mecum and would rather see all of this discussion shut down. Sorry, but the State Republican Party does not run this blog. This story has been run in multiple mainstream news sources already like the Capitol Times (http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2009/12/11/gops-mecum-subject-of-complaint/). It isn’t anything you can get away with sweeping under the rug anymore as bathroom wall entertainment. Why don’t you identify who you represent?

By: DSW

DSW — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:53:42 +0000

Bill,

Consider this my personal invitation to contribute to Sonoran Alliance if you think you can help raise the standards and stakes.

Shane

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:48:55 +0000

Regarding other bathroom walls, you can rest assured that I lament the comments on other outlets, too.

You write, “Are the Democrats that good that no one has anything negative to say about them?”

I have plenty. Keep in mind though, Shane, that the premise you’ve established for SA is that it’s a venue for Republicans to beat up other Republicans. It’s an online litmus test.

But who cares what I think. It’s your site. Do what you want. It’s not like you’re responding to paying advertisers. The stakes are pretty low.

By: DSW

DSW — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:48:50 +0000

Bill, would you like us to completely shut down all commenting? And have you checked the “bathroom walls” of the Arizona Republic and other media outlets lately?

By: DSW

DSW — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:39:20 +0000

As the omniscient and benevolent administrator of Sonoran Alliance, there have actually been a wide variety of unique IP addresses associated with the comments.

You also forgot to mention the names of the Republican Professionals and our current Superintendent of Public Instruction. And don’t forget our current Governor and US Senator.

That reminds me. Are the Democrats that good that no one has anything negative to say about them? Or, do we automatically assume they are inherently “rotten to the core?”

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:38:22 +0000

Shane, you own Arizona’s biggest bathroom wall and people have been scribbling outrageous garbage on here for a while.

Now to engage in this navel gazing about what’s right and wrong for SA rings hollow. You operate the casino; don’t act shocked that there’s gambling going on in here.

By: Blog reader

Blog reader — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:10:45 +0000

The length number of comments doesn’t prove anything. I would bet that a majority of the anti-Mecum comments are by a small group of two or three people that have a huge grudge againist Mecum. I would suspect the majority of reader are turned off by the constant circular firing squad nature of the relentless posts attaching Mecum, Charles Jensen, et al.

By: Conservative

Conservative — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:21:44 +0000

DSW, I think you already have your answer. As reflected by the lengthy number of comments on this post and the previous one, this has been one of the most popular subjects ever on this blog. The vast majority of the comments have expressed a negative opinion about Mecum, not disapproval with the post. I don’t see a rush of commenters responding that the topic is inappropriate. It would be worse if you had censored this information, and Mecum ends up getting removed as ED or criminally convicted – then it would look like you had purposely suppressed relevant political information. As long as it’s politically newsworthy, and at least somewhat relevant to Arizona conservatives, you should allow discussion of the topic.

By: DSW

DSW — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:20:34 +0000

OK, I have to admit that was pretty funny. Now go to bed.

By: GOPher

GOPher — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:10:40 +0000

I want more stories about Vernon Parker’s profitting off his government job and the Justice Dept investigation of such.

And I want Sheriff Joe to run for Gov’nor. And so I really want lots of stories about that.

And if the Coyotes stay in Glendale, I want them to win lots of games.

And I want a an official Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle. I promise I won’t shoot my eye out.

But mostly I want Sheriff Joe to run for governor.

By: DSW

DSW — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:21:51 +0000

I just want to know what our readers want? I read the comments saying thanks for exposing the truth regardless of political affiliation and then I read angry comments about the circular firing squad.

Some things I have censored – particularly comments that attack family members or make unproven assertions. I even censored a link showing Brett feigning oral sex being performed by some young woman in a garage. Not this time. These photos of Brett are out there and given all the stories over the last few years of young women having their photos taken in provocative positions, one would think that these kinds of photos are going to make it to the internet as some point.

My argument is that we Republicans try to live by a higher standard that is based on some moral and ethical absolutes.

It’s pretty hard to deny some of the recent activities and if we really want to be serious about what we believe, then we better get our act together.

The way I see it, there are some of you who want to get our act together and there are some of you who want to bury your heads in the sand and ignore the problems.

So I ask the question again. Do you want to read posts that point out the problem(s) or do you want to read posts that look the other way?

feign, feign, feign…

By: Bill????

Bill???? — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 04:22:05 +0000

What is that supposed to mean, Bill? Shane has been censoring comments about Mecum for awhile. Just because he finally permits posts and comments to go through about Mecum’s proclivities doesn’t mean you have to slam him. I’ve tried to post several comments about Mecum before that, which Shane has censored. I may not agree with Shane for having censored prior posts and comments about Mecum for as long as he did. But I certainly wouldn’t make fun of him now for reconsidering, especially since major mainstream news outlets like the Capitol Times have picked up on it. http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2009/12/11/gops-mecum-subject-of-complaint/