Who’s Next? Arredondo or Arpaio?


In August, we ran a post asking why Randy Parraz was not targeting the 2nd worst offender in the Fiesta Bowl scandal – State Representative Ben Arredondo. After all, Parraz and crew were adamant that one of the major reasons the recall was taking place was because of corruption over the Fiesta Bowl.

Yesterday’s recall election was a major success for Randy Parraz and crew. They made political history by defeating a sitting State Senator and placed the “trophy political kill” of Russell Pearce on their wall.

With their success behind them, will Parraz and crew now be intellectually consistent in their agenda of cleaning up the corruption by pursuing the recall of State Representative Ben Arredondo?

Perhaps Parraz’ comment from an interview with the Arizona Republic on election night will shed some insight where he intends to take his leftist political machine next:

Parraz said he and his allies may go after other politicians whom he blames for poisoning Arizona’s political discourse, singling out Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was at Pearce’s side throughout the recall campaign.

“We’re looking at other people, like Sheriff Arpaio,” Parraz said. “If that’s the type of politics Sheriff Arpaio wants, we’ll see what happens in the new year.”

Parraz’ political agenda has never been about cleaning up corruption – especially the kind of corruption Democrats thrive on. It’s about taking down elected officials who are strong on immigration policy. Parraz’ motives are racially based and align with the La Raza agenda. And he will use that racial hatred to divide communities and bolster his political resume.

So who’s next on Parraz’ political hit list? Arredondo or Arpaio?

Don’t say we didn’t warn you.


Comments

  1. The election theme here was “vote for Jerry Lewis or you’re a racist”, and it worked just well enough. The affect of Mormon-rid­dled Utah’s passing of a welcome mat for fugitives made an obvious impact on the heavy Mormon vote in this recall election. Now the big question is the impact on legislator­s through out the U.S. Will 1,500 or so voters of Mesa’s district 18 be able to wind down anti-illeg­al immigratio­n legislatio­n in Arizona and across the country for fear of recall by Moveon.org­, the S.E.I.U., lunatic left voters, and the metastasiz­ing pro-illegal Hispanic vote? Today in Arizona, America took 10 steps backwards. Prepare to surrender your country.

  2. True Conservative says:

    Huh?

    I never heard that once – at all … in any shape or form.

    Can you give one credible example of that being put out by anyone, much less the Lewis campaign?

    You missed one of the salient truths that emerged from the campaign finance reporting – there was no MoveOn, no SEUI, no George Soros involvement. The union money went to Pearce (union’s love career politicians) and NO ONE is pro-illegal.

    Prove otherwise, do something to support your naked allegations.

    • Marty Smith says:

      Did you check every single donor and see what their political affiliation is and what groups they belong to? We do know well over 90% of the recall money came from outside ld18. we do know some heavy hitting open borders types donated to the recall

      and we do know union groups from NYC paid 20k to open border advocates Promise AZ who was campaigning for jerry Lewis

      • True Conservative says:

        No, actually, we don’t know that at all.

        Lewis took 3-percent of his money from out-of-state and 56-percent from out-of-Mesa. Not a single outside political action commitee donated to Lewis.

        In contrast, Pearce took 20-percent from out-of-state and 88-percent from out-of-Mesa. He took in more than $78k from outside PACs.

        BTW: how much did Lewis raise in total? $68k

        source: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/10/28/20111028pearce-recall-campaign-money-reports-brk28-ON.html

        Pearce took more from outside lobbyist and special interests than the entire Lewis budget – and he still got his clock cleaned.

        The more important point here is that you, innocently I presume, repeated a lie about Lewis. Find out who told you that fib and never trust them again.

        The truth matters, or at least it should.

        • Conservative American says:

          And almost 20% of the individual contributions to fund Citizens for a Better Arizona came from from one couple, Doming A. and Maria Elba Garcia of Dallas, Texas. Domingo being a former Democrat Texas State Representative and an attorney who takes illegal alien activist law cases. His wife, Maria Elba Garcia, has been a delegate to both the Texas and the National Democratic Conventions. Together, they have donated literally hundres of thousands of dollars to Democrat organizations.

          Domingo A. Garcia is currently representing MALDEF in a redistricting lawsuit in Texas and his client, MALDEF, just happens to be a plaintiff in an Arizona lawsuit against SB1070.

          • Let’s face it, the only pro-Jerry Lewis entity in this process was his campaign. All the PACs that were formed to “support” him were really just anti-Pearce. You could have put Mickey Mouse on the ballot and people like Domingo A. Garcia wouldn’t have changed their stance one bit.

            Neither candidate could control where the PACs got their funding, so I don’t fault them for any strange bedfellows they picked up along the way. Let’s set aside all the PAC nonsense for a minute here and focus on the fundraising efforts of the candidates themselves. After all, they could only choose where to raise funds for their own campaigns.

            Bottom line: Lewis clearly raised the bulk of his money inside the district. Pearce clearly did not.

          • Great.

            I’d be more worried about the people like me. You know, the ones who live here. And vote here.

            While my $500 wasn’t on par with the Garcia’s, there were far, far more like me than the one you list.

            • Conservative American says:

              The Garcia’s of Dallas, Texas, contributed $18,000 to Citizens for a Better Arizona which amounted to almost 20% of total individual contribution dollars that CBA received. That is one fifth of total CBA individual contribution dollars coming from one out of state couple both of whom are Democrats.

              Domingo A. Garcia was a Democrat state office holder in Texas and his wife was a delegate to both the Texas and the National Democratic Conventions. Together they have donated literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrat organizations.

              Mr. Garcia is an attorney who takes illegal aliend advocacy cases and on of his current clients in a Texas redistricting lawsuit is MALDEF which is also a plaintiff in an Arizona lawsuit against SB1070.

              Rob wrote: “I’d be more worried about the people like me. You know, the ones who live here. And vote here.”

              I’m sure you would, Rob, but I’m not. I’m interested in those from out of state who are liberal Democrats who supplied a huge portion of the individual contributions to fund the recall.

              • Knock yourself out, ConAm.

                Let me know when you get your first windmill, ok?

              • LOL

                He just had to repeat his nonsense one more time. Delusional thinking…what can you do?

              • Conservative American says:

                Your ridicule, right from Saul Alinsky’s Rule 5 in “Rules for Radicals”, will have no effect on me whatsoever. Ridicule away, my little leftist. The facts remain the facts despite your ridicule, LOL! ;-)

              • Hey Con Am, how’d your boy do last night?

                Feel any regret for backing such a sleazy campaign?

                Or, do the ends justify the means?

                Fact: Pearce got his fat ass handed to him.

              • Conservative American says:

                Hey, really nice language there, Lampoon. About what we expect from foul mouthed liberals.

        • Marty Smith says:

          LOL.

          EVERY SINGLE TIME it is said the RECALL got it funding from out of state, and a HUGE contribution from a open borders attorney, the pro recall people point to Jerry Lewis campaign funds

          WHY is that?

          • Because it is true.

            Pearce also got most his money from out-of-state. But you keep ignoring that, while simultaneously spouting off about all the outside special interests that opposed him. Can’t ignore one side and deride the other for the same activity. That is not an honest argument.

            Lewis himself can’t control what those other entities did. It doesn’t matter who the opponent was, because they were not supporting him, they were gunning for Pearce. Pearce’s enemies came from all over, I will give you that. But it looks like most his “friends” came from out of his District as well. When it came time to vote, they couldn’t help him.

            • Marty Smith says:

              and HOW MUCH did the Recall campaign get from WITHIN LD18?

              WHY do you IGNORE that

              and why wouldn’t Pearce get support from arizona and beyond? SB1070 is widely popular, many, many states are looking or already have mirrored this legislation. so NATURALLY people outside of LD18 would contribute to Pearce – because they ALL know what is going on – the radical left taking out a very popular republican!

              • I talked about the recall part at the bottom of this page. Here’s what happened, IMO. Pearce, riding high on SB 1070 passing, tries to roll it out nationwide. Rather than fight it in each state, its opponents go after the source. If they make an example of him, maybe it dies a quick death everywhere else.

                Pearce was arrogant in the fact that he rode out across the country to promote SB 1070 legislation and ignored his own district. It was the equivalent of a king riding out to battle and leaving the castle undefended.

                All the money in the world doesn’t make a difference if the recall campaign can’t find enough people willing to sign a petition for the recall. Pearce had clearly alienated enough folks at home to trigger this event. Money can buy signature gatherers, but it can’t buy the signatures themselves.

                And you can say the radical left took him out, but that is false. LD 18 is a conservative stronghold. The radical left targeted Pearce, but voters across the political spectrum took him out.

          • True Conservative says:

            I think it is because the discussion started with the election, not the recall, so one tends to think you are talking about Lewis, the candidate in the election.

            As a point of order, Pearce was recalled when the election was called by the SoS and the Gov. That’s what recall means – the official is recalled to a new election.

            Once the election is called, the recall is over. Period. The election goes on even if only one candidate is running.

            So, when you write that this election was all about voting against Pearce or else your anti-Hispanic, we presume you’re talking about the election, and not the recall.

            Lewis was not a part of the recall, he became a candidate afterwards.

            And, the best part – HE WON!

  3. Conservative American says:

    Why should “zoo” be held by you to a standard to which you do not hold yourself.

  4. I think recalls will have to be limited to State Legislators. The number of signatures needed for state-wide (or even Maricopa-wide) offices are just too much to overcome.

    They may talk a big game in going after Arpaio, but they will never be successful.

    And zoo… That kind of disingenuous spin is exactly the type of tactic that voters rejected from the Pearce campaign. Might want to rethink your messaging. Just sayin…

    • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

      In order to take out anyone, you need the Dems or not even close. The Democrats are the hard leftists and LD18 turncoat PC’s conspired with them to beat a Republican. They should be removed from the roles.

  5. Hmm.
    THe Hispanic vote may weigh in bigtime here. The kidnapping sector is nearly exclusively within the Hispanic community and Arpaio’s department is a major force containing it.
    American Hispanics have a lot to lose if illegals are able to degrade that protection by going after Arpaio – the net result would be a spike in criminality out of the illegal sector. Arpaio does manage a very professional department – not so many people have that ability, and people will not realize what they had until it’s gone.

    • True Conservative says:

      The kidnapping myth has been repeatedly debunked.

      http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/jun/28/john-mccain/mccain-says-phoenix-second-kidnapping-capital-worl/

      As the PIO for the PPD stated:

      Sgt. Tommy Thompson, the Phoenix Police Department’s public information officer, “said almost everyone who is kidnapped in Phoenix is involved in criminal activities such as illegal border crossings and the drug trade. Unless you’re involved in the dope trade, there’s a very very slim chance that you’ll be kidnapped.”

      Illegals can’t do anything to Arpaio – they don’t vote and can’t sign recall petitions.

      Arpaio is who he is. I don’t see any reason to recall him. If the FBI indicts him, I *may* reconsider, but there’s not much moving on that front that I can see.

      I just don’t like all the memes put into play to justify reactionary legislation.

      • ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

        True Conservative says:
        November 9, 2011 at 11:58 am
        The kidnapping myth has been repeatedly debunked.

        Sgt. Tommy Thompson, the Phoenix Police Department’s public information officer, “said almost everyone who is kidnapped in Phoenix is involved in criminal activities such as illegal border crossings and the drug trade. Unless you’re involved in the dope trade, there’s a very very slim chance that you’ll be kidnapped.”
        ::::::::::::::::::::::

        Are you on SPIN CYCLE today?

        You claim debunk and then cite exactly what I was referring to:
        Kidnapping is occuring in Phoenix and it IS directly linked to the Mexico drug cartel criminality which plunks it firmly inside the UNWILLING Hispanic community FOR THE MOMENT.
        Phoenix IS the kidnapping capital of the USA.

        You can try to shut down discussion, but not the truth.

        Unlike you, I’ve lived in high-kidnapping cities and the moment the gangs know they can get away with this extortion, ANYONE’s fair game. The CRITICAL difference between Phoenix and the world’s OTHER kidnapping capitals like Mexico City, Lagos and New Delhi is a STRONG, PROFESSIONAL POLICE FORCE.

        You are cruelly saying it doesn’t count, that the “myth was debunked” because it’s Mexicans who are getting attacked, not you, so you are telling everyone not to look, ignore the real human terror so your political interests remain unquestioned, unexamined so the Democrats and the illegals who have criminality special interests can undermine Arpaio whose deputies spend more than just a little of their time trying to HELP and PROTECT the local community most at risk from kidnapping, no matter from what country those victims hail.

        There is more compassion in any ONE of Arpaio’s deputies’ little fingers than in the whole of the Democratic Party. .The Obama Administration US Justice Department ARMED the criminals against our law enforcement., and Eric Holder admitted this week that their action to do this it will cause problems LONG into the future. That’s DEATHS of INNOCENT people. Disgusting.

        .

        .

        • Not even going to touch 99% of your rant, Wanumba as it’s so off base as to the subject.
          But I do find it interesting that seem to give full credit to Arpaio and MCSO while citing Phoenix PD and their spokesman.

          I do find it interesting that you place entire blame on the Obama admin when a nearly exact program took place under the Bush admin…plenty of guns walked right into the Cartels hands that are impacting things TODAY. They are just as guilty as those involved today.

          Both administrations have blood on their hands but the R after their names washes that away.

          • Conservative American says:

            Your rant is 100% off base. It’s been put on ignore.

            • No kidding who needs Phoenix PD when it’s on STRAFOR, global security analysis?

              Rob wants everyone to ignore the reality of extreme terrorism and extortion within the Hispanic community in Phoenix. Not his skin, until the local law enforcement is evicerated and replaced by incompetent political hacks and the,now well-armed by the Phoenix ATF office, gangs perceive “Rob” has some money he can part with.

              I am stunned at the willful ignorance of these coddled and sheltered people. You won’t “get” it until you’ve been car-jacked and it’ll be long forgotten that I WARNED ya’ll.

              • Conservative American says:

                Rob is a left wing radical attempting to pass himself off as a conservative. He is for that which will do the most to tear down America. If denying reality will serve that end, he will adamantly deny reality. Just another run of the mill leftist, LOL! Nothing to see there.

              • LOL!!!!!

              • Oh, and by the way, thank you to ConAm and Wanumba for providing direct examples of what I pointed out.

                And adding an exclamation mark to it as well.

              • Conservative American says:

                Like TC, declare yourself victorious in debate to your heart’s content. It avails you nothing, LOL!

          • Well, I think you forgot that wanumba *is* a gigantic hypocrite. One only has to look at his silence here at Sonoran Alliance during the Phil Gordon and Clarence Dupnik recall attempts as exhibit A.

          • ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
            Rob says:
            November 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm
            Not even going to touch 99% of your rant, Wanumba as it’s so off base as to the subject.

            :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

            CHeapest intellectually dishonest trick in the book. “I won’t read anything that isn’t what I already have decided on.”

            The claim that “bush did it to” has been exposed as another didge. The abuses going under this FAST and FURIOUS are NOT comparable.

            It’s WRONG, ILLEGAL AND EVIL. You should be braying loudly that the people who designed this and activated the US government agencies to force private gunshop owners to capitulate or be put out of business should be brought up on criminal charges.

          • Wrong again. Eric Holder’s testimony this week: Holder STATED the two programs are NOT comparable.

            The Bush Administration actually TRACKED the weapons, didn’t lose them and was in FULL COOPERATION FULL COOPERATION with the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT.

            FAST and FURIOUS as Holder described as “Obama Administration” lost track of the weapons as soon as they went over the border BECAUSE THEY DID NOT INFORM THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT.

            It’s a disgusting LIE to try to dismiss what’s going on with FAST and FURIOUS by claiming “everyone does it” NO, THEY DON’T. Democrats should be CONDEMNING this, not spinning excuses for it. PEOPLE ARE DYING.

        • True Conservative says:

          No, Phoenix is not the kidnapping capital of the USA.

          You did not read the article to which I linked. It positively, without question, debunks your claim.

          Politifact stated is very plainly: FALSE!

          Kidnapping is on the decline. There were 358 reported kidnappings in 2008 (10 fewer than reported by the LA Times, due to later reclassification of the crimes), 318 in 2009 and there were 105 from January through May 2010, he said, putting the city on track to sustain less than 300 this year.

          Further, there is contention as to whether the stats claimed by the far-right are even accurate.

          http://azplea.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=419:abc-15-reports-on-false-kidnapping-stats&catid=5:immigration&Itemid=25

          It’s a meme, plain and simple. You can argue about that, but the facts are on my side. Or, you can focus on where we agree. No recall is needed for Arpaio.

          • True Conservative says:

            ETA (edit to add): Kidnapping is a serious problem in PHX. Illegal Immigration and cross-border drug trade is the major factor and both need to be fought.

            However, what I can’t abide is the need to tell falsehoods – let’s be kind and call it hyperbole – that only inflames the passions of readers rather than deal with the issue on the merit.

            If wanumba and I were to make a check list of issues, we’d agree on 95-percent. Where we would disagree is on the rhetoric used to discuss those issues and on the nefarious nature of those who hold opinions contrary to ours.

          • :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
            True Conservative says:
            November 9, 2011 at 4:56 pm
            No, Phoenix is not the kidnapping capital of the USA.

            You did not read the article to which I linked. It positively, without question, debunks your claim.

            Politifact stated is very plainly: FALSE!

            Kidnapping is on the decline. There were 358 reported kidnappings in 2008 (10 fewer than reported by the LA Times, due to later reclassification of the crimes), 318 in 2009 and there were 105 from January through May 2010, he said, putting the city on track to sustain less than 300 this year
            :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

            Phoenix has a kidnapping rate of 358 per year, 99% or so of which are narco-cartel-related. Seems there’s a very LARGE LARGE LARGE problem in Phoenix with kidnapping, almost one a day – and clustered in certain neighborhoods.
            Kidnapping is a form of extortion and terrorism. Gangs get lots of money from it to use to fund other crimes.

            But our dear two-faced True Conservative is instructing us to IGNORE it and PRETEND it doesn’t exist, on the peculiar grounds that it’s illegals, mostly Mexicans who are the overwhelming victims of it. These Democrats LOVE to tell us they CARE, but they spent inordinate amounts of time and money to come up with ways to BLOCK and handicap law enforcement from breaking the back of this scourge.

            The only winners in removing barriers to illegality and weakening law enforcement are the criminal drug cartels. It’s becoming more than just a bit germane for the public to be informed how much money they put in to influence political manuverings. and who gets it.

  6. Arpaio has been far more successful, intentionally or not, when it comes to dividing communities along racial lines. And I’m pretty sure he’s not a La Raza member.

    Personally, I’d prefer it if all the talk about “who’s next” by those who who opposed Pearce – including Parraz – stopped now. The message has been sent, loud and clear. However, it remains to be seen if those who were cc’d on the memo get the message.

    I had intended to say that I hoped the GOP learned a lesson last night…people do value the purity of our election process and people who don’t see eye to eye with you on every single issue don’t take kindly to be labeled as ‘Open Borders’, ‘liberals’, ‘anarchists’, ‘leftists’ and, particularly, ‘La Raza types’. Unfortunately, as the editorial shows, that hasn’t happened.

    Pre-election polls showed upwards of 55% of registered R’s in LD18 as opposing Pearce with a 3% Lewis lead. Given that we are looking at an 8% margin of victory, it can be safely assumed that number of R’s held true, if not increased. Simply put, there’s no way we are sitting here today discussing a Pearce defeat without a large % of R’s voting for his opponent. Are they all RINO’s? Are they all Liberals? Open Borders illegal lovers? Doubtful. However, without doubt, many of them did not take kindly to those labels that some fellow Conservatives were so quick to label them with for not seeing eye to eye with them on one single issue. IMHO – for those who were sitting on the fence – beyond those driven away through disgust from the Cortes sham, this was the second biggest contributor to those who voted against Pearce .

    • Marty Smith says:

      then why not wait until 2012 and have Lewis beat Pearce in the primary election?

      • Oh boy, this again.

        Because Pearce was gearing up for wedge-issues war 3.0 already and the change needed to happen now b/c even after his 5 immigration bills went down he still wasn’t getting the message..

        Enough was enough.

        • Marty Smith says:

          NOTHING will change. Republicans still control the senate and the agenda. That is a total bs excuse

          • Actually, different KINDS of republicans now control the agenda b/c without the “gang of 7 (the immigration-six plus lewis)” on board no more crazy, ineffective, divisive, short-sited immigration ridiculousness will get through. Doesn’t matter who the new leadership is, they’re going to have to stick to economy/jobs/state-jurisdiction issues, not stupid birther bills, state gun legislation, “anchor baby” nonsense, etc.

            • I am not so sure. In election years, wedge issue votes always spike. And there was a conservative revolt against the moderate R’s last time around. Depending on leadership, I could see some votes designed to get this Gang of 7 on record in hopes that they can be picked off by more conservative R’s in the primaries.

      • You can continue with the “why not’s” Marty but bottom line is recall is a Constitutional right of the people. Given that it’s only happened once in 100 years of the State’s history, I’d say it’s little used and to start wanting to make wholesale changes due to one use is capricious.

        It’s over and done.

        Instead of whining and throwing out hypotheticals you’d be best served to take a good look at what happened and why. You may not agree with it, but it should, at least, give you clues as to how to avoid it in the future. It will definitely illustrate how NOT to run a recall campaign.

      • Wow, you guys lost that argument 6 months ago, and your constant recitation of it did not help your case at all. Coupled with the fact that conservatives actively sought the recall of Sheriff Clarence Dunpnik, Mayor Phil Gordon, and successfully recalled the mayor of Quartzsite, it doesn’t seem to have any resonance/hold water.

      • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

        Yes, lets have a rerun in the primary. Even the LD18 turncoats can’t affect that race. Then Pearce can go on and kick whatever leftist that the dems have.

  7. Marty Smith says:

    we drastically need to overhaul the recall rules here

    first, the only people that should be allowed to sign a recall petition are those who are registered in the party of the official involved – AND – were registered in that party at the time of the last general election

    • That is quite possibly the worst idea I’ve ever heard.

      • Terrible idea. Once in office, an official represents their entire district, not just the voters that have the same party affiliation. Being more beholden to one’s party over everything else, including the country as a whole, is the primary problem with politics today. You are more concerned with the letter next to a person’s name than you are with their character.

        • PearceBOT5000 says:

          Completely agreed with Chris. Pearce represents ALL of LD18, not just Republicans. I think he got that message LOUD AND CLEAR last night. I don’t think there should be primary elections at all. A single general election should do the trick!

    • Did you let former Senator Pearce know your thoughts Marty when he was actively campaigning for Clarence Dupnik’s recall?

    • So, basically, you’re on record admitting you believe politicans should not serve their all constituents, only those within their political party. That explains a lot.

    • Conservative American says:

      I’m a Pearce supporter and that makes no sense to me at all. As has esentially been said, all the people vote in a general election so all should be allowed to vote in a recall. That’s democracy.

    • Why do you hate liberty and freedom? Oh, because THIS TIME you didn’t like it.

      LOL

  8. Conservative American says:

    Sheriff Arpaio has not been successful in dividng communities along racial lines. He has merely exposed the divisions between those who feel that they are entitled to pick and chose which laws should be enforced and those who believe that all our laws should be enforced.

    I think any lessons learned have to do with politics in a predominantly Mormon legislative district. The LDS Church stated it’s position regarding illegal immigration and that was the position which Lewis took.
    Those in the LDS Church who feel that they should adhere to Church policies, by way of being loyal, would vote for candidates whose positions are in harmony with those of the Church.

    Your analysis, Rob, doesn’t consider how may Republican voters in LD18 are Mormon and how many felt that they should adhere to the position statements of the LDS Church. The failure to consider those variables makes you analysis fatally flawed.

    Are you telling us, Rob, that there were NO liberals, Democrats or illegal alien activists involved in the recall at all? If that’s what you believe, let me know and I’ll document their involvement for you.

    Those who were focused on a “single issue” were those who opposed Senator Pearce because of his stance on illegal immigration and his SB1070 law.

    What Rob is seeking to do in the above post is to disseminate propaganda so that the recall will have the maximum impact desired by the liberal left. He seeks to interpret events for us from a liberal perspective, telling us what lessons we should learn from what trasnspired. Rob’s “lessons”, of course, seek to portray an all-powerful liberal left and suggest that conservatives should therefore surrender. That isn’t going to happen.

    The liberal left is not all-powerful. With the help of the LDS Church they won a battle in a district where the LDS Church holds much sway. The idea that such victories can be repeated at will at all levels in all districts and with all offices is pure fantasy.

    Let’s move on to the next battle and the battle after that and the battle after that because we will do battle until the war is won by conservatives and the liberal ideology soundly debunked. Your “interpretations” do not discourage us in the least, Rob. We recognize them for what they are; liberal left propaganda.

    • In order….

      Note I did say whether intentionally or not. There are consequences for every action. Arpaio has not been very discrete in his choosing of locations for his sweeps. And, when it comes to picking and choosing which laws to enforce, I’ll give more credence to that argument the first time I see him arrest an employer instead of patting them on the back.

      You are correct, I am not calculating religious influence. But, given that the other major Religions would hold views similar to those of the LDS and may well be more overt in their views (as a former Catholic who still attends mass occasionally I know full well what I would hear during sermon) I don’t think that factor would change much throughout the Valley.

      I made no statements regarding other groups or people who were involved CA. Obviously, those you list had involvement. I also know, first-hand, that many Conservatives were involved. If you want to keep overlooking that fact, so be it. My points were not to who was involved in the recall (you need to get past that) but were to those who made the ultimate decision; the voters. And again, without a significant amount of Republicans voting for Lewis we would not be adding Former to Senator Pearce’s title.

      There’s no dissemination of propaganda from me CA, though I’ve read enough of your posts to know that everything you don’t agree with sooner or later comes out as a leftist conspiracy. (For the record, I generally lean right on an overwhelming amount of issues.) There is no all-powerful liberal left, except your mind CA. Until you are able to take in facts and take an objective look at what has taken place, you are doomed to repetition. That’s not something unique to Politics either.

      If it is your opinion that what I stated did not negatively impact Mr Pearce, so be it. Keep going down that same road.

      • Conservative American says:

        In order…

        It’s irrelevant that you said “intentionally or not”. That is not the issue which I addressed. What you said was: “Arpaio has been far more successful, intentionally or not, when it comes to dividing communities along racial lines.” That is the issue which I addressed, pointing out that Arpaio has merely exposed divisions between those who feel entitled to pick and choose which laws should be enforced and those who believe that all of our laws should be enforced.

        Rob wrote: “You are correct, I am not calculating religious influence. But, given that the other major Religions would hold views similar to those of the LDS and may well be more overt in their views (as a former Catholic who still attends mass occasionally I know full well what I would hear during sermon) I don’t think that factor would change much throughout the Valley.”

        There is no “given” that other major religions would hold views similar to those of the LDS OR that those of other religions would feel the same desire to adhere their church’s positions as Mormons might. The fact remains that you failed to take into account variables which could affect your conclusions and so your analysis remains fatally flawed.

        Rob wrote: “I made no statements regarding other groups or people who were involved CA.” You did, in fact, make precisely such statments:

        Rob wrote: “I had intended to say that I hoped the GOP learned a lesson last night…people do value the purity of our election process and people who don’t see eye to eye with you on every single issue don’t take kindly to be labeled as ‘Open Borders’, ‘liberals’, ‘anarchists’, ‘leftists’ and, particularly, ‘La Raza types’.”

        What you are saying is that there were no “Open Borders”, ‘liberals’, ‘anarchists’, ‘leftists’ and ‘La Raza types’ involved, only those who were labelled as such. There were, in fact, liberal Democrats and illegal alien activists involved and if you dispute that I’ll document their involvement for you.

        Rob wrote: “My points were not to who was involved in the recall (you need to get past that) but were to those who made the ultimate decision; the voters.”

        Excuse me, but I don’t “need to get past” anything. You would like me to “get past” Citizens for a Better Arizona but I respectfully decline. No recall, no election.

        Rob wrote: “There’s no dissemination of propaganda from me CA, though I’ve read enough of your posts to know that everything you don’t agree with sooner or later comes out as a leftist conspiracy.”

        That’s your liberal interpretation. It is the habit of left wing liberals to term anything which refutes their arguments to be a “conspiracy”. It all started with Democrat Hillary Clinton and her “vast right wing conspiracy” statement. You are merely following suit in the liberal Democrat tradition.

        Rob wrote: “There is no all-powerful liberal left, except your mind CA.”

        To the contrary, Rob. There is only an all-powrful liberal left in your mind and you seek to affirm that in the interpretations you offer of what has transpired. Conservatives are quite capable of drawing their own conclusions about lessons to be learned without help from you and others on the liberal left.

        • Rob says:
          November 9, 2011 at 12:17 pm
          In order….

          Note I did say whether intentionally or not. There are consequences for every action. Arpaio has not been very discrete in his choosing of locations for his sweeps
          ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

          Well WHY should he be discrete when the Democrat Lawyer True Conservative up there helpfully CONFIRMS with links that the overwhelming majority of kidnapping, extortion and assorted violent criminality is INSIDE the Hispanic communty, with very little of that OUTSIDE it?

          What sort of nonsense are you suggesting? That Arpaio should be “fair and balanced” and waste his time and taxpayer money standing around eating donuts looking for something to “sweep” in Scottsdale of a day, while Hispanic neighborhoods only a few miles away are getting hammered by narco-terrorism criminality?

          Arpaio leaves the Hispanic neighborhoods and the narco-criminals hold them HOSTAGE.

          You send law enforcement to the areas that NEED it.

          Next time you get a Starbucks double latte with sprinkles, pour it on your HEAD. You need a WAKE UP call for your BRAIN.

  9. The ironic thing is that Jerry Lewis may be the best Republican candidate to beat Ben Arredondo in 2012. If the proposed legislative districts do not change significantly again (which is a big “if” given the removal of the AIRC chair), Jerry Lewis and Ben Arredondo will be in the same legislative district, the new LD26. If Jerry Lewis is smart, instead of running for re-election to the Senate where he would have to face a likely primary challenge from Wendy Rogers followed by a general election against Democrat minority leader Shapira, he will run for one of the two House seats in the new LD26. The Republicans in the current LD17 have been having trouble getting viable candidates to even get on the ballot in House races. In contrast, Lewis would be a quasi-incumbent with a base of support in the new Mesa portion of the proposed LD26 where Arredondo and Ableser would be weak.

  10. Conservative American says:

    That would be fine if Lewis were a conservative or even a real Republican instead of a Democrat in Republican clothing. What makes you think that he would even run against a fellow Democrat?

    • PearceBOT5000 says:

      Tell me- except for the fact that he’s not an “enforcement-only” guy on immigration, where exactly is he anything but conservative?

      Abortion?
      Gay marriage?
      Fiscal and tax policy?

      • Conservative American says:

        I don’t have to show where he is not conservative on issues other than immigration. His liberal Democrat position regarding illegal immigration and illegal aliens is sufficient to prove that Lewis is not Republican and not conservative.

        Republicans, all they way to the U. S. Congress, have held their ground that they will not discuss “immigration reform” with Democrats unless and until our borders are secured. Lewis wants “immigration reform” now, without that prerequisite. That is a Democrat position.

        Conservatives want enforcement of existing laws on the books regarding illegal immigration and illegal aliens. Lewis wants to “help” illegal aliens to “get square with the law”. They can “get square with the law” without any “help” by simply turning themselves in to Sheriff Arpaio.

        • I didn’t realize the GOP was a one-issue party. If that is the entirety of their scope, then they have truly lost their way.

          Personally, I still believe in the party of small government, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and pro-business. But I guess those aren’t Republican issues anymore. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

          • Conservative American says:

            I never said that the GOP was a one-issue party nor did I say that was the entirety of their scope. What I am saying is that somone who holds the progressive Democrat position on the important issue of illegal immigration is NOT a conservative, not even a Republican.

            • You just contradicted yourself. If they aren’t enforcement-first, they can’t be a Republican? That sounds like a single-issue litmus test to me.

            • Sorry, that last post may come off as harsh. I am trying to understand, but if I am getting snarky, I apologize. If he can’t differ with the party on this issue and still be “Republican”, can he differ on any other issue? I thought it was a “big tent” where individuals didn’t have to march lock-step with the party line.

              • Conservative American says:

                No problem, Chris. :-)

                Chris, what makes a political party a political party? It’s a unity of principles and positions.

                What differentiates one political party from another political party? It’s the differences between their principles and positions.

                What causes people to support one political party over another political party? It’s that the party they favor best representst their personal principles and positions.

                Yes, absolutely, supporting the position held by Republicans all the way up to the U. S. Congress IS a litmus test for being Republican. Furthermore, supporting the position of Democrats on an important issue makes one, in practice, a Democrat despite an “R” after one’s name. Where do you think the term “RINO” came from?

              • Conservative American says:

                Chris, you don’t break with your party on major issues because it is the position on major issues which define a political party.

                “Big tent” is a buzz phrase which means nothing. The political party which stands for everything stands for nothing. When a tent become too big, it falls of it’s own weight. That’s what Democrats are hoping for.

            • Tiny Elvis says:

              God ConAm, your personal life must suck really, really bad for you to come on here and cry for attention like you do.

              Find a hobby.

              • Conservative American says:

                That’s a personal insult and attack which lends nothing to the debate. If that’s all you have, you are impoverished, little man.

        • CD6 Businessman says:

          ConAm, what Jerry Lewis actually wants is for the legislature to focus on issues that are most important.
          From an article by Conservative Talk Show host Michael Medved:

          “Actually, no major poll of the last year–no, not one of them—shows robust public interest in the subject of immigration. This month, CBS News asked an open-ended question in which respondents named “the most important problem facing this country today.” Less than 2 percent named “illegal immigration” and a dozen other concerns (led by “the economy and jobs” of course) finished higher on the list. Over the summer, surveys from Bloomberg and Fox News found 3 percent and 2 percent, respectively, who identified immigration as a priority, with gas prices, the war in Afghanistan, health care, the deficit, education, and even nebulous concerns like “partisan politics” and “moral values” more frequently mentioned by the public.”

    • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

      Lewis now bows down in front of the leftists. I am not sure what he is doing.??

  11. Nordine Crub says:

    Or maybe dunce Wendy Rigers lost her race and Jerry Lewis maybe Wendy should take on BigBen and Appleskiever.

  12. Nordine Crub says:

    My appologies to Wendy Rogers. My iPhone autocorrected and “since” became “dunce” in my last post.

    • Stupid liberal technology!

    • Knowing Wendy Rogers and the powers that be in current LD17, I think the odds of her deciding to run for state House instead of state Senate are about 0%. I also think she would beat Jerry Lewis in a Republican primary in the new LD26 although he could give her a bit of a run for her money. The vast majority of the Republicans in the larger Tempe portion of the district like Wendy a lot and would likely vote for her over Lewis (and that would include me by the way). Lewis would have the advantages of incumbency so you can’t rule him out but it would be an uphill strugge.

      In the state House race, there would be two seats instead of one. It would be really hard for the people who don’t like Lewis to find two Republican candidates who could get more votes than him in a primary. They might find one but they would have trouble getting two. As I said earlier, in the current LD17, they have been having a hard enough time finding any Republican House candidates let alone strong ones. So his ability to get the Republican nomination would be radically higher.

      And Ben Arredondo would be an easier target for him than Shapira. Lewis could run on an anti-corruption theme and maintain a lot of the bi-partisan coalition that he won with yesterday.

      That being said, Shapira may not even run for re-election. He might run for Congress or some other office in 2012. So that could change the entire equation.

  13. Mike Triggs says:

    Jerry had the perfect storm!

    He was Mormon, a conservative republican, likable, a businessman and educator and wasn’t Russell Pearce. Oh, and no one but the total crackpots in the district believed that he was Judus’ Goat or that he stole clothing off the backs of homeless kids.

    • Raising Arizona says:

      Not to mention, the Pearce campaign ran the exact opposite campaign from what would have won him this race. If the dirty tricks and negative campaigning was the idea of his staff, they should never work an election again. If it was his idea, well . . . he has already been fired. A conciliatory tone would have flat out won him this race.

    • Conservative American says:

      Lewis is not a conservative Republican. He is not likeable and his work as an educator has contributed to the very education problems he is supposedly running to fix.

      Excuse me, but I hardly think that you are qualified to determine who is a “total crackpot” since some may consider you part of that group yourself.

      • Raising Arizona says:

        Looks like someone had a sour bunch of grapes for lunch.

        • Conservative American says:

          Get new glasses.

          • Raising Arizona says:

            I just looked up “total crackpot” in the dictionary. Definition number 2: anyone who has met Jerry Lewis and tries to insist that he isn’t likeable. Any intellectually honest person would have to at least concede that Lewis is a ridiculously nice, likeable guy.

          • Tiny Elvis says:

            crackpot

          • Conservative American says:

            ROFL! You liberals are a hoot! You resort to pubescent retorts whenever you are cornered. Or maybe that’s the best you have, LOL!

      • Wow ConAm…you are nuts and childish. You basically hit every negative stereotype people have against the tea party.

        Are you a secret liberal double agent, here to make conservatives look bad?

        LOL

        • Conservative American says:

          Ah, yes, more ridicule and insults which I am more than happy to trade with you if that’s what you want.

          Let’s see, what can I come up with on your level… Ah ha!

          You are an ignominious Cretin who is an anarchist agent here to make liberals look reasonable.

          Well, there. Between our two comments we have added immeasureably to the quality of the debate, haven’t we.

  14. Mike Triggs says:

    Marty – I’ll tell you why. And of course you won’t believe it but it is true. Check the finance reports that are on file at the secretary of state’s office. Jerry Lewis took no money from Unions, no money from PACS, none from Moveon.org, the ACLU, the DNC. Zip, nadda,zilch

    I know you believe they did…but show me the line item. If it exists I will admit that Mike Triggs is a big fat idiot.

    • Maybe we’re looking at the wrong financial disclosures and should be looking at “independent” groups that mobilized FOR Lewis and AGAINST Pearce and from where their money came from.

      Lots of careful lawyerly parsing around, sorta noticeable.

    • Conservative American says:

      Care to talk about Citizens for a Better Arizona which made the recall possible?

      I didn’t think so.

      • That is a valid point. But recall drives happen all the time. It is just that they never gather enough signatures to matter. They are usually a waste of (outside interest) money.

        Ask yourself why this one worked. Even if they paid for signature gatherers (which I don’t appreciate), how were they able to find enough folks willing to put their names down to recall a sitting Senate President? As a constituent, I would love to have my Senator being the guy who sets the agenda for legislation. Instead, the district voters gave up all that power for a newbie.

        The bottom line is they got enough voters who were angry enough to trigger a once-in-a-century event. They would not have succeeded if the incumbent was doing a satisfactory job in the eyes of his constituents. Pearce can’t blame anyone but himself for that.

        • Conservative American says:

          You point out paid signature gatherers. I pointed out an $18,000 individual donation from a Democrat couple, from Dallas, Texas, which amounted to almost 20% of the total individual contribution monies taken in by Citizens for a Better Arizona. Think that might help explain why this recall worked or do you believe that money and paid signature gatherers have no impact on the number of signatures gathered? If you believe that then why did Citizens for a Better Arizona amass money and hire paid signature gatherers? Was it because they believed that it would not result in more signatures being gathered?

          • I see your point. But as I have said, there have been lots of recall drives in the past that never worked. Why this one? Why now? I think it was less about the money and more about the man.

          • True Conservative says:

            The reason your logic is rejected is because it presents a simply ludicrous standard for reviewing contributions.

            Because of two people – who are liberal and are very likely to hate Pearce – your logic has us tarnishing the entire movement.

            Rational people see the folly of your thinking. It barely merits the few responses you garner, much less the spammy cut-and-paste practice you displayed.

            • Conservative American says:

              As one who deliberately and knowingly attempts to deceive readers at SA, you are not qualified to comment on the statements of others. If you would like proof of my statement about you, let me know and I’ll provide it.

          • Tiny Elvis says:

            People like Constantine Querard, HighGround and ConAm lost this election for Russell Pearce. Not Russell Pearce. Maybe Russell Pearce would have still lost by 2%, but the pro-Russell crowd and their desperate, pathetic attempts led to the 8% point crushing victory.

            I wonder how that must feel…

            • Conservative American says:

              Gee, you wouldn’t happen to have a shred of proof for that subjective conjecture, would you? I didn’t think so.

              Have a nice day. ;-)

  15. Mike Triggs says:

    Raising Arizona – my point exactly. He is so nice I almost thought he was from Minnesota or Iowa. He will make Mesa proud. His big smile, Father Knows Best way about him is a welcome addition to the Arizona political scene. People will look up to Jerry Lewis because he doesn’t talk down to them. I can’t ever imagine Jerry banning anyone from his Capitol office because he has a genuine respect fir his fellow man. What we saw from Pearce was utter disdain for anyone who did not march lockstep. Not a way for someone to lead. Which is exactly why Mesa said enough is enough.

  16. Wasn’t the title of this post: “Who’s Next, Arredondo or Arpaio?”

    My suggestions: How about Bundgaard and his new best friend Biggs?

    • I think they target Brewer and Arpaio but fail to get even close to enough signatures. They might have a shot with Bundgaard, but why go after someone who’s already been politically neutered?

      I predict the next successful recall will be a Democrat in a conservative district out of retribution. Eric Meyer, perhaps?

  17. Mike Triggs says:

    The thing that a Russell Pearce had going for him that an Eric Meyer wouldn’t have was that he had painted himself into a corner with a base that was growing smaller by the day. The mere mention of Russtll Pearce’s name set people’s teeth on edge.

    Plus he had twenty years in office and had made lots of enemies within his own party. And I shouldn’t forget to mention he had his friend, Constantine Querard working for him.

    Someone like Eric Meyer hasn’t offended a good portion of his democrat base, nor from what I can tell has he done anything to offend Moderate Republicans and Independents.

    Jerry Lewis had everything going for him, all the stars were lined up and he was actually helped by all the stupid moves Team Pearce thought would be game changers.

    I honestly don’t see another successful recall on the horizon for either party.

    • You are right. I didn’t really think Meyer is vulnerable. But the D’s lit a fuse on the recall bomb. Time for the R’s to get in on the act.

      • Tiny Elvis says:

        No, I don’t think it’s really time to “get it on the act.” Pearce was a perfect storm situation. Wouldn’t have happened without Republican votes. Name one person on the Left in Arizona politics who rises to an equal level of disdain to what Russell Pearce was to the Left. Sinema? Not really.

        • Grijalva maybe? But at the state level, Sinema might be it. I hope you are right. We don’t need a recall arms race in AZ.

        • Conservative American says:

          Raul Grijalva will do quite nicely. A member of MECHA in college. A man who called for a boycott of his own state and his own legislative district because the state legislature passed a law he didn’t like. Grijalva isn’t even a state legislator. He’s a U. S. progressive Democrat Congressman who thinks that he has the power to dictate to the state legislature.

  18. Nordine Crub says:

    Also when someone elevate themsef to a God-lie status they are a sitting target No one would have believed Russell Pearce. Not even Russell.

  19. Perhaps next time a conservative is threatened SA won’t provide a forum for leftists. Let them spew their lies and distortions on their own blogs.

    • You are so right! Without SA, Pearce wins in a landslide! So simple!

    • People only censor what they disagree with. A true freedom loving American would never be in favor of the kind of censorship you are for.

      • Tiny Elvis says:

        That’s not censorship. That’s responsibility. I’m not going to allow my child to go to the movie theater and cuss up a storm and call other moviegoers names under the guise of “freedom of speech.”

        • So, you think your child would learn more from an echo chamber? You sound so liberal…”we must think about the children!!!”

          Go ahead and raise your kids like robots, keep them from ever learning anything other thatn what mom and dad tell you.

        • Conservative American says:

          Then you might want to start by setting an example for you children, Tiny Elvis, and not refer to people as “crackpot”.

          “Tiny Elvis says:
          November 9, 2011 at 8:31 pm
          crackpot”

    • Conservative American says:

      Of course SA will provide a forum for leftists, Hagar. That’s obviously what SA does. It’s good for business.

      No controversy, fewer posts. Fewer posts, less visits to the site. The fewer the visits, the lower the ranking of the site. The lower the ranking, the less chance of attracting investors.

      It’s a business decision. Nothing out of the ordinary. It’s a simple matter of the financial survival of the site. SA would eventually disappear without the controversy generated by allowing liberals free rein.

  20. Wow, the shock has set in, and the nut flags are flying! What don’t you all get? Russ is not liked, he made himself even more disliked. People voted for “not Russ”, and thankfully they had a decent guy to vote for. And all the unfounded, garbage attacks on Lewis just made the Russ fans look more nutty, more vicious and completely non-credible.

    I’m wondering if any of you tea party folk will learn from this, probably not. If the Republican party wants to get anywhere, they better make some inroads to the minority voter, they better open up that big tent, because the demographics are turning on you. Adapt or die, its evolution.

    • Inroads to the minority voter means allowing people to break the law and get away with it?
      Adapt or die? What laws to you want society to ignore next? You are a Lampoon. A Lampoon of law and order.

  21. Conservative American says:

    Lewis is a liberal, progressive Democrat in Republican clothing, despite the fact that he won.

    Conservatives don’t need a liberal like you telling us what the lessons are. We dont’ take advice from leftists and are quite capable of analyzing things for ourselves.

    Take your advice to the progressive wing of the Democrat Party. They need it as they recently lost a seat in the U. S. Congress from New York State which they ahd held continuously for over eighty years.

    • He is not a liberal. You are not thinking too clearly. Really, is Lewis like Grivalja? Or Pelosi?

      Guys like you are dying out, a vestige of the past. You are becoming a smaller and smaller dot in the rearview mirror of change.

      Your delusional rants are entertaining, like a museum exhibit.

      • Conservative American says:

        ROFL! What a bunch of tripe, LOL!

        Lewis supports the “immigration reform” NOW of the Democratic Party.

        Lewis is exactly like Grijalva, to the letter.

        No, we’re not dying out and we’ll live to see you liberal leftists pushing up daisies.

        LOL, you’re the ones pushing the ideology of Marx and Engels who are from the 19th century. You think you’re all new but your ideology is two centuries old!

  22. Veritas Vincit says:

    Who gives a rat’s ass what Lewis is? He’s got 12 months and then he’s out on his ear by the hand of those who got him there. They have other plans which don’t include Lewis.

    Read “Blueprint” Randy Paraaz is just the beginning… ever hear of a group calling itself “Arizona Success”? You’d better…

    Arizona is the national target of interests far from our borders. The prime players? Pro-Open Borders and Amnesty crowd and the Unions who benefit.

Speak Your Mind

*