Jerry Lewis Won a Republican Primary


By Tyler Montague

A Response to Senator Steve Smith

In his comments about recall elections the other day, Senator Steve Smith said, “We just witnessed how the radical left has used the recall system to defeat an opponent they could not and would not have been able to defeat in a standard election.”

The publicly-funded, freshman Senator from Pinal County may have some useful ideas for reforming the recall process.  (I feel we should get rid of paid petition circulators for recall elections!)  But Smith’s reference to the Pearce/Lewis election demonstrates a lack of understanding of what happened on the ground in Mesa.  More harmful to Republicans is that perpetuation of the “leftist takeover” narrative by Smith and others prevents some of the analysis and valuable learning that should be happening as a result of Lewis’ victory. Neither a “flawed recall process” nor “the radical left” caused Senator Pearce’s defeat.

Lewis won by a 12-point margin.  The financials, the polls, and the final vote tallies stubbornly support the case that Lewis would have won if this election had been a Republican primary.

The numbers
Registered Democrats comprise only 26% of LD18; which means they can’t impose their will on anyone.  They accounted for 28% of the vote total in the recall election, and of those, it is estimated that 36% of Democrats voted for Russell Pearce.  Republicans have many more LD18 voters, who further amplify their influence with a tendency to vote at a much greater rate.    Republicans formed 49% of the vote.  Republicans and Independents did the heavy lifting to get to the 55%-43% final margin of victory.

The Arizona Capitol Times conducted a poll the week before the election and found that 36.4% of Democrats were planning to vote for Russell Pearce.  If you start with that assumption, then assume Independents voted roughly in proportion to the final totals, Republicans ended up voting 51%-49% in favor of Lewis.  The actual votes by party are not published, so we must use polling.  The 36% Democratic vote for Pearce, and the slight Republican advantage for Lewis are both consistent with the Capitol Times poll and internal polling conducted by the Lewis campaign.  It is possible that Lewis performed better than the polls said among Democrats or Independents, which would lower his percentage among Republicans.  But one has to remember that Independents are allowed to vote in a primary of their choice, so Lewis would still win in a hypothetical “primary” vote created by removing all Democratic votes from the total.

Poll-based assumptions, fitted to the official vote tally

Party

Pearce

Lewis

Cortes

 

Total

Pearce

Lewis

Cortes

DEM

36%

61%

2.42%

 

6472

2356

3959

157

GRN

10%

90%

   

36

4

32

0

LBT

50%

50%

   

147

73

73

0

OTH

41%

56%

2.36%

 

5097

2107

2870

120

REP

49%

51%

   

11459

5582

5878

0

                 

23210

10121

12812

277

Total

23210

10121

12812

277

It is impossible to know for certain how Lewis would have fared in a regular primary without the media attention, efforts by independent groups on either side, and without some of the trickery that ultimately backfired on Pearce.  The recall scenario didn’t break all in Lewis’ favor.  We know the special circumstances of the recall may have persuaded large numbers of Republicans to vote for Pearce, when they might have chosen another candidate in a normal primary.  They bought into the Pearce Campaign’s relentless arguments that the recall was a left-wing attack against the Republican Party, and that it was time for people to choose teams rather than evaluate candidates on merit.  It was a tactical error of the Lewis team to not counter by pointing out that Pearce himself had supported a recall effort against Sheriff Dupnik earlier in 2011 and said that the threshold for recalls was appropriately high.  We also could have reminded people that Pearce ally, EV Tea Party Chairman Greg Western, initiated a recall against fellow Republican Rich Crandall the year before.  Pearce’s hypocrisy, along with information like the ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court, which reaffirmed Constitutional language stating that recall elections do not require allegations of wrongdoing by elected officials, may have swayed some of those Republicans to drop their anti-recall-based support of Pearce. 

So what does it mean?
Many lessons of this election are portable.  The first point:  Pay attention to your constituents.  Pearce’s statewide and national list of endorsements was impressive, but Lewis lined up the majority of the leaders in Mesa, and voters trusted the people they know personally.  If donations were an indication of support, Lewis did a good job getting people in his district to invest in his campaign, and a review of Lewis’s donor list, debunks the “outside leftist radicals” story very nicely.  Lewis got 67% of his money from Mesa, 43% came from LD18, and only 2% from outside the state.  Even though he massively outspent Lewis, Pearce only got 4% of his money from LD18.  It doesn’t matter as much how popular you are beyond your constituency—they can’t vote for you.

The second point:  Priorities.  Voters felt that more attention needed to go to the economy and jobs and education.  Over and over again in meetings with small groups, voters said they felt like their priorities were taking a backseat to ideological hobbies.

A third point:  Voters said yet again in this election that they do not like dirty campaigning or angry politics.  The candidates at the top of the campaign can do a lot to set the tone, and can control their followers to a large degree.  The well-documented language and tactics used in this election may have made the final difference in the outcome.  You cannot take someone like Jerry Lewis, a highly respected, longstanding moral leader in the community, who as a seminary teacher had taught hundreds of students from hundreds of families throughout the district, and make scurrilous claims that “he steals from homeless children,” without being punished by voters for such offensive, unfounded, and overreaching slander.  Future candidates for office should look closely at this election and think long and hard about hiring consultants who promote such tactics.

Finally, any election involving Russell Pearce is also an election about immigration, and there are several things to learn here.  First is that people who oppose illegal immigration and support SB1070 and other tough laws, are not a mutually exclusive group separate from those who want solutions that would keep families together and let people rectify themselves with the law without necessarily deporting them.  There is significant overlap.  Dr. Bruce Merrill and the Morrison Institute for Public Policy released a survey last month of Arizonans that indicated 78% of heads of households favored, “…legislation that would allow these people to be put on a path to becoming American citizens if they have no criminal record either where they came from or here in Arizona if they pay a fine for coming into the country illegally, get a taxpayer I.D. number and demonstrate they can speak English.”  Republicans favored such measures by 69%.  Pearce and allies tout 70% support for SB1070, but then make the mistake of deriding those who oppose mass roundups or the equivalent of starve-outs as “open-border anarchists opposed to the rule of law.”  This alienates people, particularly those in the religious and business communities who feel we could tackle immigration problems in a way that solves the problem, helps the economy, and honors our Judeo-Christian values, without necessarily handing citizenship to millions who didn’t come here the right way.

Pearce’s tone on immigration alienates Hispanics.  Latinos favored Lewis by more than 3:1 according to polls.  That number alone should spark discussion about the way the Republican Party approaches the immigration issue.  Anyone looking at projected growth rates from the U.S. Census will see Hispanics’ rapidly growing role in American politics.  Many Hispanics are social conservatives with a tradition of working hard and wanting to keep the fruits of their labor—in other words, many Latinos should resonate to core messages of the Republican Party.  Yet they are put off by the angry rhetoric surrounding the immigration debate.  Arguments to secure the border and to deport felons or freeloaders make sense to most of us; but leaders who point to criminals as justification to round up farm workers and dishwashers present a non-sequitur that makes more sense to Hispanics when explained by xenophobia or racism.  While some Latinos support the approach championed by Pearce, one out of four Hispanic votes will not win the elections of the future for the Republican Party.  The approach championed by Pearce is politically short-sighted.  The Republican Party needs better leadership on the issue of immigration.

Spending too much time fretting over the recall provision in the Arizona Constitution will prevent conservatives from making the adjustments the Pearce recall should catalyze.

Tyler Montague is a lifelong Mesa resident who helped recruit and campaign for Jerry Lewis.  He currently serves as a vice-chair of the LD18 Republicans.


Comments

  1. Mesa Constitutional Conservative says:

    Let’s admit the left was cheering for this.

    But that doesn’t mean that significant portions of the Republican Party weren’t cheering too. People outside Mesa had no idea how much Pearce’s support had eroded.

  2. Preston Smith says:

    Looks about right to me… anyone who “still” lived in LD18 for the recall, knows that everyone is LD18 was sick of being treated the way Pearce treated everyone.

  3. Just an observer says:

    Interesting facts, Tyler, that many of us hadn’t been privy to before. Sure. The “left” was happy. But so, apparently, were so the majority of voters on the “right.” That is what it will take to win in this political climate. A candidate who can have the respect of people who may disagree with him/her on the issues because they are willing to listen and compromise. Few people vote strictly along party lines anymore. It may be time to rethink some of our traditional ways of doing things in politics…more need to be willing to take the good from both sides and work toward solutions. As far as take away lessons, I think you can add: With social media, the average supporter can really weigh in and spread the word…and do a lot of damage to your cause with rants and unsupported arguments. It seemed to me that it was REALLY shortsighted and potentially very OFFENSIVE for Pearce supporters to send an onslaught of e-mails or facebook posts criticizing people who supported Lewis for being uneducated pawns and uninformed “sheep” on the “bigger” issues. That couldn’t be further from the truth. One Pearce supporter actually sent an email suggesting Lewis supporters take a class on the constitution and start by volunteering at a lower level to learn to be involved. Are you kidding me? A candidate and his/her team need to be really on top of what the “chatter” is and be sure and respond appropriately, so that the unofficial word doesn’t become “official” through inaction. Responsive, civil, truthful, short termed leaders are what the people want…answerable only to their conscience and the voters. And remember, support your candidate without vilifying the opposition. They are still your neighbors.

    • Agreed

    • Just an Observer: “The ‘left’ was happy. But so, apparently, were so (sic) the majority of the voters on the ‘right’.” Seriously?
      You are “apparently” lumping in all the moderate Republicans with the “right.” It was the “left” and the “mods” that booted Pearce–not the “right.” Although from the turnout numbers, considerably less than last year’s general election, it was the “right” not showing up that help cause Pearce’s defeat.

      Tyler’s assessment of the whole thing is a bit self-gratuitous. He refuses to admit that without the “left” (Parraz, Snow, moveon.org, Soros, SEIU, the Arizona Republic, etc.), Lewis would not have had a chance, period. And, yes, the left IS happy.

      • RonJ, you don’t know me, so you calling me part of the “left” shows the ignorance of the rest of your post. I am a lifelong conservative Republican, Mormon, father of five. Just because I don’t agree with the narrow minded, short sighted, neo-racist Tea Party Republicanism that you, Steve Smith, and Pearce espouse doesn’t make me any less of a Republican. Politicians like Russell Pearce, Joe Arpaio and others who exploit the politics of fear and hatred are killing our party, our state, and our economy. (Notice how Arpaio and Pearce have worked for the government their entire lives, and yet are the darlings of the Tea Party set?)

        • Why argue with a 2-bit lawyer and illegal immigration profiteer? Let’s watch TV:

          Well-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l
          come and listen to my story ‘bout a man named Chad
          who feigned in-jur-ies just to keep his family fed
          and then one day he was shoot’in at the fence
          and out came a plague that’s-been com’in ever since

          well the first thing ya know ol’ Chad’s a millionaire
          1070’s loomin Chad move away from there!
          said “Californee is the place ya outta be!”
          so he loaded up the muck and moved to Bev-er-ly….
          ….Hills that is….
          illegal aliens….sanctuary cities….stiletto scars….bump! bump!

          THE BEVERLY SNOWBILLIES!
          bump-ditty-bump-ditty-bump-ditty-bump-ditty-bump-ditty-bump-ditty-bump
          bump-ditty-bump-ditty-bump-ditty-bump-ditty-bump-ditty-bump-ditty-bump

          brought to you by SNOW & CARPIO, ATTORNEYS AT TROUGH

          ATTENTION UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS!!!
          Are you tired of scrubbing toilets all day for .29 cents an hour?
          Are you considering an Anchor Baby to get on the public dole?
          Don’t spend years raising that future gangster larvae! Truck on down to
          wide-track town at SNOW & CARPIO!
          Our crack experts will put you in a low-mileage workers’ comp claim faster
          than you can say extend-o warranty-o! Many models to choose from!
          Is your employer demanding you go to designated medical care?
          Under Arizona law, we can direct you to Dr. Jesus Xacto’s Medico Clinico-
          he’ll have you up and drawing long-term total disability in no time!
          So why spend your days shaking used salsa out of diapers?
          Live the good life in Amexica with SNOW & CARPIO, where our founder
          Chad Snow says: “..give me your tired, your undocumented, your attorney fees..”
          And for a limited time only, FREE crutches with every claim!
          SE HABLA ESPANOL!!!
          Visit us online-o at:

          http://www.snowcarpio.com/SNOW-Y-CARPIO-EN-ESPANOL.shtml

          • Anson Clarkson says:

            This response is offensive. Your use of “Anchor baby” tries to dehumanize individuals the say way Pro-abortion supporters dehumanize “fetuses.” I’m sure you didn’t mean to sound completely racist, but I can see why the rest of the United States thinks what it does about Arizona.

            • Anson Clarkson says:

              *same

            • Anchor Baby: “A child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family.”
              - American Heritage Dictionary

          • So, now you have two posts without substance (more to come I’m sure) that had to just resort to calling the pollster a name, and impugning Mr. Snow rather than deal with any of the facts of the case. It typifies the Pearce supporters here that levied pound after pound of inane name calling and fevered attempts to run down Lewis. It was fun to read, especially when you sensed the complete fear and ignorance of those posts. It was textbook idiocy that only served to make Lewis stronger.

            Pearce lost because he became arrogant, out of touch, narrowly focused on one issue at length and because he surrounded himself with some of the dumbest folk around. His sense of entitlement and lack of reality did him in, and we are all the better for it.

            • So over in your sewer away from home, the New Times – where all of the Lewis/Parraz/Snow supporters congregate, there is no name calling or impugning? The diseased subculture behind these carpetbaggers spew one-liner obscenities that read like the bathroom wall at the drive-in movie. The word hypocite comes to mind.

              I didn’t “impugn” Snow, he is self-impugning. Over at the slop bucket a couple weeks ago he associated the term “niggerhead” as Joe Arpaio’s motive for endorsing Rick Perry. Tsk! Tsk! Hardly an aura of decorum for a “good Mormon”, especially with church’s tainted history with blacks.

              Snow is a $ocial rodent, Lewis is a porchclimber, and the poll was a formulated, contrived, and manipulative piece of taxpayer-funded pro-amnesty propoganda, released to correlate and enhance the Pearce recall results. Even the reconquistas aren’t buying it. Drone on.

              • Sewer, social rodent, porchclimber, etc etc.

                When I read your posts, its like sitting next to a crazy man with tourette’s syndrome on a bus.

                You ran out of actual arguments a long time ago, now its just name calling, and not even interesting name calling, just the usual angry, unfocused gibbering.

                BTW, Pearce lost by 12 points, spin that.

              • The poll may have been formulated or contrived, but that election sure wasn’t. 12 points – the ultimate scoreboard. You can call me all the names you want. People like myself, Anson, and Tyler are man enough to post under our own names. Keep hiding behind your silly screen name, little boy.

              • Screw you Snow! This is not the NT, and here you are the sewer rat that you really are, despite dragging your leftist scum supporters with you. Just keep coming back for more, you sanctimonious dreg.

              • Hey Lampoon (sweetiepie): What would you call your hero SNOWBILLIE using the term “niggerhead” to degrade Joe Arpaio? A good Mormon? A pillar of the community? A responsible Republican? Go screw yourself.

              • Poor deluded Zoo, the only thing you understand is the lowbrow. You certainly can’t fathom election results can you?

                Keep gibbering, someone might put a quarter in your cup.

        • Actually, Chad, I do know you. And your affiliation with Parraz and his leftist, bigoted, socialist crowd tells me all I need to know about you. A true “lifelong conservative Republican Mormon” would not be in cahoots with such a crowd (you know, “birds of a feather…”). Your bigoted rants about “narrow minded, short sighted, neo-racist Tea Party” members belies your claims of conservatism. (BTW: what is a neo-racist? Did you make that up just for the chance to use “neo?’) And talk about fear and hatred!? Parraz, Soros, and the left are some of the greatest fearmongers around. And, apparently, you have joined them. For what? The almighty dollar? One of my favorite quotes is by someone you claim to respect (if indeed you are a practicing Mormon), Ezra Taft Benson. He said, “A liberal Mormon is a Mormon without a testimony.” I was there when he said it and I am very much aware of the context in which he spoke. It means exactly what it says. It’s even truer today than in the 1970′s when Benson said it.

          • And what exactly does this post have to do with Tyler’s article?

            • Just read my original post. Tyler is in denial as to how Pearce really lost–with the help of the left (including moderate Republicans), not conservatives.

              • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says:

                RonJ, glad to see you’ve put yourself in charge of determining who is conservative or not. And glad to see that you’re using only one single issue–immigration–to make that determination.

                Pearce lost because he lost the support of enough Republicans that they also voted against him, possibly by a majority. I don’t know if Tyler proved beyond a doubt that Lewis got a majority of Republicans, but the numbers support that at least a huge chunk of them left. Too bad some of us (you) are too dense to learn from it.

              • Mesa Constitutional Conservative: I’m certainly not “in charge of determining who is conservative or not.” What a silly argument. But what you “are” is made up of what you “do.” And you can’t change definitions at will. The old story goes: If you call the tail of a dog, a leg, how many legs does a normal dog have? The answer is not five; it’s still four. Calling something it’s not doesn’t change the facts. If you align yourself with Parraz, Soros, SEIU, and the Democratic Party, you simply cannot call yourself a conservative Republican–at least not with a straight face. And illegal immigration isn’t the only contributing factor; however, in Chad Snow’s case it might be ($$$).

        • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

          You are still trying to Snow job everyone, Chad. Come clean, you are not a conservative and none of your writing has ever indicated conservatism. You are an ambulance chasing illegal immigrant, workmens comp fraud lawyer. You sleep with the sleaziest leftists that you can find to fulfill you political and greedy monetary welfare.
          You are after anyone who wants to uphold the laws of this country. It ends up making you money if you cheapen citizenship in the USA. We are up to your duplicity. The laws will be changed and you may have to see if you can make an honest living soon.

          • Sarge, your name speaks volumes. You flap your jaw, without really saying anything of substance. BTW, it’s “workers” comp, not “workmens” – women can get injured too.

            • In your little shyster profit center the term is “aliens’ comp.”

              • Come out into the light, zoo. It might make you a little less bitter and more civil.

              • Look what “coming out into the light” did for you. Half of the valley is out shopping for toilet paper with your face on it. What a wonderful legacy to leave to your five brats.

  4. @zoo. You can call into question the poll, but the election numbers stand for themselves. Mesa wanted something different.
    And a side note, I trust your distaste for ASU means you will not be supporting their candidate Matt Salmon. That much we can agree on.

  5. Tyler,

    Yep, you can really spin.

    Looking forward to your next post which will probably been about how Obama is really a Republican.

    Truth is that Pearce ran a lousy campaign.

    Lewis is a tool for the lefties.

    • Ghost of Friedman says:

      Carl: If he is a tool for the lefties, they just bought a pretty ineffective tool from their standpoint. Lewis lines up with Pearce (and most other Republicans) politically on pretty much every issue, with the added benefit of having a more reasonable stance on immigration. I hope Parraz and the lefties kept the receipt.

    • Tyler Montague says:

      Carl, I think one of the main takeaways is that there is a segment of the Republican/Tea Party population who have appointed themselves arbiters of ideological purity, and they use “100% Agreement with Pearce on Immigration” as some sort of litmus test as to whether someone is a true conservative or not. Sorry. Many very conservative people like myself disagree with part of Pearce’s approach, and his complete intractability on the issue is why we ultimately split with him. Ignore the fact, or learn from it.

      Lewis is a lifelong conservative. If the left has an insidious plan to support conservatives who are in touch with the voters, then by all means, let them implement it.

      • A long winded post from a ….?….conservative. Tyler Montague ….a fill in the blank ‘conservative.’

        Where was the breakout on the stats for Mesa LDS Tyler? Shall we wait on baited breath for Bruce Merrill’s next Horizon funding drive appearence?

        All the handwringing over ideology? What have we been living with since Lewis made his monumental sacrifice?

        Political grandstanding from Obama’s DOJ via the 3 year investigation against Sheriff Joe which just happened to get annonced on the 1 year anniversary of Brian Terry’s death – after a couple of weeks of local coverage pounding (And Terry Sterling Green going national via Daily Beast) him for a so-called scandal over sex-crimes investigations – investigations delt with over three years ago.

        Coinciding with this the Parazz/Snow crew you so adore doing their community organizing gig at the knee of a few County Supers whose fued with Joe goes back to sometime around the Mezozoic Era.

        And you didn’t even have to turn on Univizion to listen to Stevie Gallardo harp billingually on why Joe belongs under the jail and at the least in DOJ recievership. A cynic might sniff a whiff of a media rollout for chrissakes!

        Yes Tyler, you folks have a ‘lot of splainin’ to do. Like forked tounges usually do.

        LD 18 was no bellweather for anything – despite a desperate effort on your part to try and spin numbers into something you can profit from. You got a bad case of toxic bedbugs after choosing who to sleep with.

        Whats next….a gig with Telemic Sym? No no, let me guess….you are going to work for ….

        Homeland Security? Please say its true. After all your party unifying?

        • Anson Clarkson says:

          I very much hope Phoenix 48 is not writing off Arpaio’s serious misstep in not investigating sexual abuse cases in El Mirage. Look past the liberal political grandstanding and see that the Maricopa County Sheriff failed to adequately investigate some of the most heinous crimes possible. “But he’s ‘The Toughest Sheriff in America’…” unless you are a sex offender.

          Because someone has a different opinion of RP’s tenure/campaign does not make them any less valuable to the GOP. In fact, Tyler’s ability to discuss issues intelligently without reverting to bombastic rhetoric or name-calling makes him essential to furthering the GOP cause.

        • Phoenix48, read the Goldwater Institute’s study “Mission Unaccomplished” about what a complete failure Arpaio is as a law enforcer and then get back to me. Or is the Goldwater Institute too liberal for you also?

      • The tea party has fallen, as expected, into the entropy of the rabble of the people who made it up. Angry, ignorant folk don’t make for a lasting enterprise, and they are easily distracted. Besides, saint Sarah decided that raking the easy dough for making vapid commentary on Fox or allowing a crew to film her and her dim husband in Alaska was too easy to turn down. Besides, being president is hard, what with all that thinking and such.

      • Tyler,

        Let’s take you assertions in order.

        First, I have seen NO evidence that you think, only that you are an advocate of amnesty.

        Second, you mistake principles with “ideological purity,” which is not surprising as there is no evidence you have any principles.

        Third, sorry, but you are not a conservative, unless you consider Obama to be a conservative!

        Fourth, yes I understand that YOU are for amnesty, amnesty and more amnesty .

        Fifth, Lewis is no conservative, unless you mean the term to include Obama.

        Finally, I realize that AMNESTY is your top priority and that you will spin for anyone supporting amnesty when the other candidate opposes amnesty.

  6. Paula Pennypacker says:

    “Carl, I think one of the main takeaways is that there is a segment of the Republican/Tea Party population who have appointed themselves arbiters of ideological purity, and they use “100% Agreement with Pearce on Immigration” as some sort of litmus test as to whether someone is a true conservative or not. Sorry. Many very conservative people like myself disagree with part of Pearce’s approach, and his complete intractability on the issue is why we ultimately split with him. Ignore the fact, or learn from it.”

    As someone who was targeted on this very blog because I dared speak out against Pearce and his radical approach to immigration reform — I totally agree with Tyler on his comment above, and his very well written post.

    I am reposting it on my Occupy Washington Grassroots Coalition facebook page.

  7. Great post, Tyler. The messages sent by the butt-whuppings inflicted BY REPUBLICANS on Hayworth, Thomas, and now Pearce are apparently lost on the Steve Smiths and Frank Antenoris of the world. Mainstream Republicans are rejecting these divisive, ideologically driven politicians who ignore mainstream issues.

    The FACT is that the recall never would have happened if we hadn’t known that Russell Pearce was not chosen as a state party delegate by the LD-18 REPUBLICANS. After speaking to several precinct committee people in Mesa we realized how thin Pearce’s support was among his own party in the most conservative district in the state – it was only then that we knew a recall could be successful. Hundreds of Republicans donated time and money on the recall – Steve Smith should get his facts straight next time and then distort them as he pleases.

    Another message that the voters sent strongly is that they are tired of politicians who are more interested in playing politics and demonizing the other side than in seeking pragmatic solutions to problems. Steve Smith and Frank Antenori ignore that message at their own risk.

  8. THat was quite the argument up there, not worth a plugged nickle.

    It is a BIG SPIN and FOG to claim Jerry Lewis won a PRIMARY of ANY kind. That would mean the voters had a chance to vet Lewis through the GOP party system, which did not happen.

    A recall is NOT in ANY sense or stretch a ‘primary.” The voters STILL have NO CLUE as who Jerry Lewis is or what he stands for. He OBVIOUSLY doesn’t respect general elections or has ANY fellow party loyalty to newly elected officers of his own stated party.

    RECALL means something. “PRIMARY” is NOT the word or concept.

    Pearce won the PRIMARY and the GENERAL ELECTION.

    • As if putting words in caps makes your post any more intelligent….

      Pearce got his ass handed to him, and his supporters are resembling the stranded Japanese soldier who thought the war was still going on 20 years later.

      Pearce LOST.

      • You are absolutely correct that Pearce LOST.

        He was torn out of office by a coordinated political COUP. That is the correct political nomenclature.

        That COUP was via the use of RECALL. Obviously, it’s an effective tactic, because it’s being used against NUMEROUS Republicans right now.

        The GOP better wise up FAST. Being “nice” is no substitute for an organized boots on the ground political response.

        • So much empty hyperbole. Recall is valid, and constitutional (ask Pearce, he wasted taxpayer’s money bothering the courts to try to clear that up). The voters (largely Republican) told Pearce to hit the road. Torn out of office? Such a drama queen! He lost big time, only if the pigheaded Pearce had holed himself up in his bunker, maybe, but thankfully, he was a grown up and left peacefully.

          As for the GOP wising up? Yep, they better, start taking Hispanics seriously, or they will lose out on gaining a powerful, hard working ally.

        • Funny, because I don’t see the word “coup” anywhere in the state Constitution. Or in the Republican controlled Supreme Court’s decision upholding the election. Can you point me to that reference?

  9. Why every cabel of coup d’etat plotters on the planet ALWAYS argues that the “people wanted it.”

    Standard excuse procedure for cutting short elected officials terms of office, sending the actual ballot box results to the shredder..

    This stuff is boilerplate in power-grabs.

    • wanumba,

      I know you’re alleged to be in Africa, where governments have the life span of a Spinal Tap drummer* and military coups are de rigeuer, but what happened in Mesa, wasn’t a freakin’ coup d’etat, and you know it. Jerry Lewis won with Republican, Independent, and Democratic, so stop being a whiny little punk, except the fact that Russell Pearce lost touch with the electorate, and that he was removed from office by the people using a Constitutionally valid process.

      You cheapen the idea of American democracy when ever election that you lose becomes an affront to democracy – i.e. your poltical wishes.

      Either that, or get an Amazon subscription for Kleenex, you freakin’ baby.

      * – Credit to Buffy Summers

  10. Mesa Constitutional Conservative says:

    Wanumba, Tyler just presented a well documented set of numbers with polls and actual results to back it up. You…nothing but whining. The people DID support Lewis. That’s what 55-43 means. And everyone including Montague knows it wasn’t a primary. His point is that Republicans ousted Pearce, not leftists. Get out of denial.

    • Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

      Monsieur Tyler titled his piece with “Lewis won a Republican Primary,” which is absolutely FALSE.

      From the get-go the assertations are tainted.

      Lewis ran in no primary, he ran in no general election. To claim he fulfilled ANY of those requirements for VOTER VETTING and VOTER APPROVAL is disengenuous.

      • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says:

        Then he goes on in his article to say, “if this election were a primary, and there were no Democratic votes, Lewis would have won” and that, my friend, is the equivalent of a primary. No it’s not a real primary–everybody including Montague knows that–he’s basically telling geniuses like you to shut your crybaby pieholes and accept the fact that Pearce got his butt kicked, and that the commies weren’t the ones doing it.

  11. Always frustrating to see a bunch of hard data followed by analysis that ignores it. Or has nothing to do with the data, and pulls conclusions out of the ether. Anyone claiming to know why the handful of voters that voted for Pearce in the past voted against him this time. Make all the educated guesses you want, claiming to know the will of voters is just bizarre.

    Votes are measures as either/or, yes/no, Jerry/Russell. They make no editorials, no footnotes, no other comments that are measurable. And stop calling characterizing the two groups of people that voted for or against one or the other candidate as “the people.” Call them the majority, call them the larger number, just don’t call them the people.

    • Tyler Montague says:

      Foodie,

      Lewis conducted many polls, met with dozens of groups of voters, and his campaign conducted and documented the answers and results of thousands of phone calls. There were also polls and studies done by outside groups, whose results were published. Pearce’s campaign spent extensive resources polling and identifying voters, and one could even draw inferences from what they were publishing and saying as a result. Your criticism is not accurate. The truth is that we DO know why voters were either for Lewis or Pearce, or against either of them, and I wrote about it in my editorial.

      -Tyler

      • Yeah, the extensiveness of one’s research does not connote quality. You claim to be inside the heads of the hundreds of voters who voted for Pearce before, and voted against him this time. No way. And my criticism does not have to be accurate, I just need to show you are wrong. You say two plus two equals five. I don’t need to prove it’s four, I’m just saying it’s not five.

        A poll is a poll, an educated guess. Just don’t pretend it’s more than it is.

        Wait, well now you said it, “Lewis conducted many polls.” That’s insane, impractical, and not likely given the funds available. So probably not a truthful representation of the research done. Maybe we differ on what a poll actually is.

        Elections are about more than phone calls and let’s-meet-a-dozen-people-for-coffee. I’m not calling you a liar, because you probably think you know something and that’s a powerful temptation. Don’t give in to it and claim you have something you don’t.

        • Tyler Montague says:

          So professionally-designed, telephone polls with valid sample sizes are not a polls, they’re educated guesses? Uh….no. Sorry. You’re wrong. They are more than that. You haven’t convinced me that you know what you’re talking about. Our campaign did not conduct all of the polling. After the election we learned of a well-constructed survey done outside the campaign that was helpful in understanding what happened. The campaign conducted two. The Capitol Times did one. I also refer to a study done by professional pollster Bruce Merrill. Supplementing these more formal polls, we also had the recorded answers to standard questions presented to recipients of calls from our phone banks. While each has its flaws and limitations, collectively they represent much more than just a “guess” that you can dismiss. You will have to refute the claims with data showing the contrary.

          I readily admit to the limitations of our information in my document. We do not know for sure how those who responded to the polls turned out to the booths. They also do not publish the results by party, and so we make inferences based off of statistics from sample data. Again, it has limitations, but it is much better than a “guess.”

          Also, conversations with small groups of people are useful for gathering data about what people think about issues. It is done all the time in serious research. Again, there are limitations, but it is more than a guess.

          • Tyler said, “After the election we learned of a well-constructed survey done outside the campaign that was helpful in understanding what happened.”

            So that means you became aware of some independent expenditures and benefitted from that spending, eh? After the election or before, they are still illegal. You are familiar with the law, right? And the penalties?

      • Flake Lewis says:

        Tyler, what has Lewis done since he won. I have heard of nothing! That that mean he will do the same at the legislature.

  12. Sgt. Flapjaw says:

    Lewis was a 5% winner. I know that the leftists like to use larger numbers to make it appear to be a bigger defeat for Pearce, but if you take 5% from lewis, he doesn’t win. I don’t know who some [most] of these commentors are, but they could easily be Chad and Tyler or their comrades. When a leftist quotes a poll it will be a leftist poll. The same is really true for the right as well.
    The demographics of the actual voters is important to consider as well. How many public employees including teachers voted in this off year election, and what percentage of the total voters were they? What is the percentage for the standard elections? I do not know these numbers, but I was poll watcher for Pearce and saw plenty of ID tags from hanging from Government employees collars. Many voted during daytime working hours too.
    The truth still remaines that Russell Pearce did lose, but to believe the numbers presented by the venal bastards that planned and carried out the back stabbing is not too bright.

    • Tyler Montague says:

      Flapjaw, Lewis was nearly a 12% winner. 5% was the initial count on election night; by the time they were done, it opened up to 12%. Do the math. And if you want to criticize the numbers, bring valid numbers of your own, please.

      http://www.azsos.gov/election/2011/Recall/Canvass2011Recall.pdf

      • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

        Tyler, Ok, a 12 instead of a 10 point margin, sorry. I don’t dispute your number here. Still, it’s then a 6 point win. Take away six they go to Pearce and Lewis doesn’t win. I dispute the validity of the inside the numbers numbers. Some of your numbers if not all are estimated, you admit that there is no way to know who voted. As a person who has estimated for a living, I know that I can estimate any outcome I want. Same with polls.
        Since you and your buddy Chad were perpetrators, your “Proof” of who was responsible for beating Pearce [You say Republicans] is not credible. That was my point.

        • Tyler Montague says:

          So, you’re saying that if Pearce hadn’t lost, he would have won? Interesting point…. :-)

          I’m a Republican. Lewis is a Republican. All of our campaign team were Republicans. We campaigned mainly to Republicans, and the numbers support the claims I’m making that we got significant numbers, if not a majority, of Republicans. Since Independents get to vote in a primary, then even if we lost among Republicans (which you can’t prove either, so…) we still would have won even if you threw out all of the Democratic votes. Republicans were behind this.

          My point is that these claims that “Lewis never could have won in a primary” and “the radical left came in and rigged this” just aren’t founded in reality. And the numbers support me.

        • Flap, you are in a rhetorical hole, and digging deeper won’t save you. You crossed over into self-parody, but you haven’t realized it yet.

          Which makes it all the more hilarious.

          If Pearce had gotten more votes than Lewis, I assure you, he would have won.

          But, he didn’t.

          End of debate.

    • “How many public employees including teachers voted in this off year election, and what percentage of the total voters were they?”

      Does it matter? Are you suggesting that if someone is a public servant, they shouldn’t get to vote? Paging Dr. Heinlein to the morgue, paging Dr. Heinlein to the morgue.

      • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

        I am not suggesting that. You lefties love to put words/thoughts into other minds. I simply pointed out that the unionist Government employees are a Pac. They also vote in concert with each other and they very well could have made a great deal of the winning margin. Non Government people do not vote in high numbers in off year elections. See the sales tax proposition.
        Yes it matters if someone else [Tyler] is suggesting that Republicans provided the winning margin for Lewis.

        • “I simply pointed out that the unionist Government employees are a Pac.”

          They are? Which Political Action Committee are all government employees registered with at the Federal Election Committee? Did this “PAC” as you call it donate any money to Lewis in the campaign?

          Based on context, I think you mean to say “voting bloc” (i.e. government employees vs. non-goverment employees), which is to say that all individuals are part of a voting bloc at some point (political parties, ethnicities, religious groups, age, etc.).

          And if government employees voted in any large number in concert, it means a large constituency of Pearce felt he was no longer representing them, and was fired for being a s****y representative of their needs. Perhaps Russell ought to choose a new district to represent.

  13. Great article, and well written.

    Wanumba, you could learn a lot about writing an opinion piece from Tyler.

    • Sure did. But not what he planned to convey.

      • Not that you would comprehend, but I meant that its factual, focused, backed up with data, its readable and it isn’t some silly wank-off like the drivel you produce.

        And no CAPS or meandering about some silly coups, etc.

        You can write well, if you apply yourself.

  14. Nordine Crub says:

    Lt. Flapjaw – If I buy your argument … you could give Olivia Cortes 50% of the vote and all of a sudden she would have been the winner. The numbers just don’t lie. In the end Lewis won by 12 percentage points….against an incumbent, powerful President of the Senate who had all the resources of the county and state party and lobbyist community working for him…and still lost! BIG TIME.

    What a stupid *** thing to say. I know Tyler Montague. Tyler Montague is a leader in District 18 and knows what he’s talking about. Major KUDOS for your thoughtful piece Tyler….and Shane…KUDOS to you for posting it.

    • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

      Nordine, You do see then, I hope, that a five point swing would have changed the out come. I have no idea why you brought cortes into it. Unless you believe that Pearce would have had to get 12 more points to win, then you may not understand the point at all. You see, we are only dealing with 100% That’s all you can get! In a 2 person race the winner only needs to get 50% plus 1. Thus if Lewis got 5 less, he would have lost. The other guy would have won. I know that there was a few scattered votes to others but I am trying to make it simple for you.
      You are a friend of Tyler I am not impressed. Tyler is a snake. Tyler is a backstabber and LD18 is only place where he could get a foothold of power. I am LD21 and he wouldn’t make it ten minutes over here. And I don’t know of any other place where a supposed conservative joins the ranks of the evil socialists to backstab another conservative. When 18 gains some integrity let me know.

      • If “if’s and but’s” were candy and nuts….

        If Lewis had 5 more points, he would have won by 17%.

        Such a brainless and mute argument you are trying to mount, go back to counting angels on the heads of pins.

        • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

          My point way back up there somewhere was simple. You leftist bastards can play numbers all day long. That is part of your lie machine. You are all about falsehoods and hiding truth behind B.S. Tylers use of pie charts and estimates makes facts that you people try to foist on everyone else. Why? Because you are so much smarter, right? Also you have been given the true vision as the anointed ones.
          If Lewis had 5 more points he would have won by 22% using Tylers original numbers. Mr. genius. If you give Lewis 5 points, you have to take 5 from Pearce. Again, there is only 100 points [percentages] to work with. Unless you anointed ones use a different type of math too.

          • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says:

            And………FAIL. Your argument sucks, Flapjaw, no matter how often you say it. You’ve been outmaneuvered. Advice: When you find yourself deep in a hole, first thing to do…put down the shovel!

          • “leftist bastards” “lie machines”

            Do you ever wonder why people don’t take you seriously? When you spew invective like that, you discredit your argument (thin as it is). If Lewis had 5 more points at the expense of Pearce it would be 22%, but endless wasted words on what-if is not productive. Lewis won by 12%, that is a whipping.

            At some point it might make sense, but your mind continues to be addled and full of unproductive anger and rage with a bit of jealousy and envy.

            But, flail away, I am enjoying the spectacle.

      • Tyler Montague says:

        Again, you’re saying that if Russell hadn’t lost, he would have won. Am I understanding you correctly? Is this a ground-breaking argument?

        And, people who disagree with you and support other candidates are snakes and backstabbers now? What if voters feel that Russell Pearce is who caused the rift? On what basis have I, or Jerry Lewis, or any of his conservative supporters, converted to the ranks of “evil socialists”? Have you asked, or do you know any of my positions on taxes, spending, regulation, abortion, the Constitution, etc.? Nope. You only know I have slight, though significant, disagreements with you on the issue of immigration.

        I disagree with your single-issue litmus test.

        • But, you were one of the recallers who claimed that it was a “single-issue litmus test” in the Pearce recall, that it had nothing ….oh no no no …. to do with anything except Pearce himself.

          The recall vote results came in Tuesday night, HOURS after.. HOURS ONLY.. and it was ALSO about Governor Brewer and Sheriff Arpaio, and it was about illegals … and … well, well.

          That’s a trifecta.
          ALL who were elected to full terms in Novermber 2010, and have been serving only snce January 2011. Vetted, primaried, won majorities itnhe general election.

          So, we need to look beyond the self-serving and disarming talk-talk from the recall crowd, don’t we?

          The recall just disenfranchised the majority vote.

          • Tyler Montague says:

            You’ve misunderstood me, Wanumba. I said that a segment of the Party, formerly led by Pearce, applies a single-issue litmus test to determine one’s ideological purity.

            The test they apply is this: “Do you agree 100% with Russell Pearce on immgration?” If the answer is Yes, then they say you are a conservative. If the answer is No, then they say you are a RINO.

            This grates on the nerves of serious conservatives who disagree with Pearce on immigration, by the way. For an example of the application of this litmus test, read the preamble to Senator Pearce’s endorsement list from last year’s primary. http://www.maricopagop.org/2010/07/29/senator-pearce-who-i-endorse-and-support-this-primary-election/

            • Flake Lewis says:

              Tyler,

              Litmus test. If you are not from the Mormon in Maricopa Stakes then you are not worthy to represent us. Maricopa Stake Mormons are better because we are all inter-related to each other and want to keep the purity of our Stakes of Zion in our corner of Mesa.

          • Raising Arizona says:

            That is ridiculous, Wanumba. The majority obviously changed its mind when presented with a more appealing alternative.

            • I ran the numbers. The “majority” did no such thing. Tyler’s pie charts are a new kind of cooking.

              • Hey Wanumba, who won by 12 points? Who put up a sham Hispanic candidate? Who had his brother go and intimidate people with Lewis signs on their lawn? Who used his nieces to gather signatures for the sham candidate?

                How soon you forget.

                Pearce, Khadafi, Kim Jong Il, Mubarak, what do they all have in common? (other than being thugs that use their position to intimidate?)

                They all are powerless…..

        • Tyler,

          You are the single issue fanatic here.

          Yes, you are for Amnesty, amnesty, amnesty, amnesty, amnesty, amnesty…

          Yes, you are opposed to anyone who opposes amnesty.

          Yes, Obama supports amnesty, just like you.

          You claim that favoring amnesty is what makes you a Republican and a conservative.

          So, do you consider Obama to be like you and Lewis?

  15. Iris Lynch says:

    The damage was already done when the money from the leftists managed (as they are interfering in other states) to get the initial ballot referendum in place. The same is being done elsewhere. Will no election made by the voters of a given state stand after the leftists, from outside of that state, decide to make a mockery of it? Should other venues decide our elections for us?

    • This will destroy the country, state by state. It is very very dangerous. The recallers do not care what they ruin. They cannot be counted on for anything, except laying the ground for outright mayhem.

      Obama stated the the US Constitution was an impediment to what he wanted to achieve.

      Damn straight. That’s precisely what it was written for. To make problems for power grabbers.

      • “Obama stated the the US Constitution was an impediment to what he wanted to achieve.”

        I see “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor” is more of a “suggestion” vs. a Commandment for you.

  16. Colleen Wheeler says:

    Just in case there are those who still believe this election was somehow close because a few percentage points one way or another may have changed the outcome, let’s put the election’s results in context. Obama beat McCain in 2008 by 7.3%. Bush beat Kerry in 2004 by 2.4% and actually lost the popular vote to Gore by 0.5%. Clinton won in 1996 and 1992 by 9.1% and 5.5% respectively. By any measure, an 11.7% margin for Lewis was a definitive win and it does say something. It says that in the eyes of the majority of voters, Russell Pearce is no longer the best representative of Mesa’s values. I hope others in positions of leadership within the GOP will see the election for what is was: a referendum on extremism.

    • Enforcement of law is “extremism” when you squat to pee. That’s why Pearce and others are referred to as “stand up guys.”

      • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says:

        What a sexist comment, “zoo.” You consistently put on display all the points we make about you.

        • Well why then do feminists waste so much time trying to get guys to sit down like girls to pee?

          Maybe they are trying to make a political statement .. even in the loo.

          • “Well why then do feminists waste so much time trying to get guys to sit down like girls to pee?”

            Your creepy fetishes have no place here, if you believe that self assured women want you to sit and pee, then you have some real issues, or some odd desires.

            • Oh, my bad. Went right over your head. I thought you knew about this:

              “It’s an entirely new definition of “Standing Room Only.” Or perhaps a new measure of “equality” has arrived.

              Whatever it is, it has sparked a huge political debate at a school in Kristiansand, Norway, according to the Norwegian paper Fædrelandsvennen.

              The trigger for the explosion of opinion? A decision in the local district that schoolboys must sit on toilet seats when urinating, not stand.

              According to the news report, the rule was announced for boys at Dvergsnes School, prompting outrage from Vidar Kleppe, the chief of The Democrats Party.”
              ::::::::::::::::::::::

              I don’t think it’s anyone’s business how they do their business, but the Lefties females in Norway do. Go yell at them for their obsession with “issues.”

        • Go crawl back in your rat hole MCC. You and your leftist pukes are out of your element here, so I don’t give a flying **** about all the points “we” spew.

    • Great point, Colleen. You could also say that Lewis beat Pearce by the exact same margin that Pearce beat Nativio by in 2008. You could also say that there was a 30+ point turnaround in margin for Pearce between November 2010 and November 2011. Much different outcome when he had someone decent running against him.

      Unfortunately, it looks like the “message” has been lost on the likes of Smith, Antenori, Tobin, et al. Wanumba and zoo, you continue to bury yourselves with your childish comments.

    • Flake Lewis says:

      Go back under the rock with the rest of your family. You have screwed the entire district up. No meetings, no unity, no Christmas party, no moral. What next?

  17. Monsieur Tyler titled his piece with “Lewis won a Republican Primary,” which is absolutely FALSE.

    From the get-go the assertations are tainted.

    Lewis ran in no primary, he ran in no general election. To claim he fulfilled ANY of those requirements for VOTER VETTING and VOTER APPROVAL is disingenuous.

    • The Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter), don’t seem to do any vetting of their candidates. The Party at the top dictates to the voters who the “suitable” candidates are and then promotes like crazy during the primary election cycle. When questions are raised about character or qualifications, those people are silenced and called traitors to the party.

      The voters are either lazy or gullible when it comes to the highly promoted and endorsed candidates and don’t do their homework. There were plenty of character issues and questionable actions that Pearce carried before last general election. His missteps between that time and the recall just added to his downfall.

      Get over it; Pearce lost and it was his own fault. When lawmakers don’t abide by the laws they create, sometimes justice prevails. Hope that the Senate Ethics Committee does right and holds another “unvetted” former Senate Majority Leader accountable for his actions last year. A little “voter
      vetting” might have prevented this guy from sliding into office so easily.

      • How was the recall superior in vetting a candidate than any primary or any general election?

        For half the recall hustle on the public, there was no alternative to Pearce at all…just air.

        Voters were busy signing a petition pushed by a coalition of recallers to replace Pearce with absolutely nothing.

        Voters were gullible or lazy voting for Pearce, but the very same voters voting for Lewis, a nobody not much more substantial than air, they are suddenly the epitome of “wise” and “informed” and “justice-dispensing.”

        Well, that’s ONE explanation.

        T

  18. Pearce had to campaign and collect majorities in the primaries and general election.
    Jerry Lewis did nothing of the sort.

    WHO knew how EASY it was to just wander in like that? Obviously Pearce couldn’t imagine it.

    A golpe de etado is by nature an unexpected strike at an undefended position. Ask anyone from Latin America. They are very familiar with it and the odious long-term consequences of such things.

    • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says:

      55% of the vote is a majority, genius. Lewis won by 55% – 43%. That’s a thorough butt-kicking, dude. Your comments make no sense.

      • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

        Geez, all of you leftist flacks are very transparent. You all just jump up and down like babies. I did not say Pearce wasn’t beaten soundly.
        You people are either just belligerent hate mongers or you are so sad that it makes your day to argue. In either case, you are the lessers of a free society. You are just trying to make your mark, like carving a bus stop bench.

        • I was just running the numbers.
          Tyler’s premise doesn’t hold up, starting with his attempt to spin it as a novel sort of Republican primary, as Democrats were voting… for Lewis. Pie charts are great things, slicing pies smaller and smaller until you can’t make sense of anything.
          Most of these posters vote Democrat, BTW.

          Did you know that fewer voters voted against Pearce in the recall than who did in the general election, which Pearce won handily.

          Don’t see many actual “Conservatives” posting. Just sayin’

          • “Numba, I asked you once before how you “know” who’s convervative and who’s not. You never answered; so I’ll ask again: am I a conservative?

            • I was talking about the folks who’ve self-identified here as voting for Democrats, promoting Democrat Party Platform planks, and who have stated what they think of “Conservatives” which isn’t pretty … so … ?

              If you want to expound on your views so we all get it from you, not us making it up about you, feel free.

              “Conservative” and “Republican” are not synonyms. There’s an overlap, in a number of areas, but that’s it. There’s a big overlap with “Libertarian” in certain areas, but big diversion in other issues.

          • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says:

            You’re dense, wanumba. The pie charts are straight data from the Secretary of State showing registration by party, and then turnout by party. That’s it. There’s nothing incorrect about them.

            • I addressed all that in the new post. I’m so glad Tyler tried so hard to pie chart a bunch of other pie charts, it was so confusing it forced lazy me to go back to the actual numbers. It was an eye-opener.

  19. Ghost of Friedman says:

    I’m starting to be convinced that Flapjaw and Zoo don’t really mean what they say. I think they are props meant to make conservatives look unreasonable and unhinged. And they’re doing a pretty good job.

    • So Chad “niggerhead” Snow, Mesa Constitutional Conservative, Lampoon, Tyler Montague, yourself, and others aren’t subversive leftist pond scum here masquerading as “conservatives?” Is this part of the Parraz/Snow/Lewis playbook? The crossovers that fell for the shinola you muck merchants peddled and voted for Lewis were NOT conservatives. They were dupes and imbeciles.

      I wonder if the Mormon church is monitoring the exploits of Snow? He backstrokes in the NT cesspool, saying whatever comes out of his shister head to rally the scum of the earth, and then comes here pretending to be a compassionate conservative and piller of the LDS church. How does the Mormon hierarchy in Mesa and Salt Lake feel about him race-baiting the term “niggerhead” to defame Joe Arpaio? Isn’t that just a little risky since the church has a reputation of hatred for blacks in America?

      • Did Chad really use that word?

        • Yes wanumba. Right after Arpaio endorsed Rick Perry, Snow was flexing for the filth crowd at NT. He stated that since Perry’s family had a ranch called “niggerhead”, THAT was the attraction for Arpaio’s endorsement. When this S.O.B. is trying to rally street vermin, he’ll say anything. There is likely a catalog of other ditties he has spewed there, I find it difficult to monitor them all without the constant use of disinfectant.

          THIS is the true-blue Mormon the LDS crowd let moonwalk them down the primrose path. If this is the type of “leader” the LDS wants representing them, they just dropped backwards 100 years.

  20. Using Tyler’s extrapolations (look it up, zoo), Lewis received TWICE as many votes from Republicans and Independents as from Democrats. His election was hardly the result of left wing support. Pearce also received 44% of his votes from Democrats and Independents, the same “radical left” that Smith besmirches in his editorial.

  21. Sgt. Flapjaw says:

    There are very few conservatives writing on this site. You faux conservatives are not being taken at your words, but on your deeds. You are flacks for the left. I would say that S.A. has pretty much become a crackpot site.

    Hmmm. Extrapolations, that is the point. Tyler’s estimates of what would happen if he says it will [did] happen. Fact manufacturing.
    My Chad, you are so smart, or is it arrogance?

    • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says:

      What equals a conservative in your book? And how have you decided that I’m not one?

      Do you have to be an Obama birther, a 9/11 truther (like Karen Johnson), and believe fluoridated water is a government mind-control plot, hate Mexicans, worship Russell Pearce, fear the Trilateral Commission, and be a member of the John Birch Society and believe that America is already 70% under communist control? (stipulation: I agree that California IS under communist control) Flapjaw, I hate to resort to name calling, but you are a complete nut job.

      • Well that’s a Liberal Left stereotype of Conservatives.
        Why are you using it? That just enables the Democrats. Ahem.

      • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

        MCC. I don’t think that you even know what a conservative is. I know that it is very popular to refer to oneself as conservative, see John McCain. Most of what your little slur describes is a Libertarian.
        If you are a McCain stain carrier, you are probably not conservative.
        If your enemies are McCain Enemies, you pobably are not a coservative.
        If you run around having to proclaim that you are a conservative, [Mesa Constitutional Conservative] you are probably not.
        If you think that it is Government’s job to serve non citizens, you are not.
        If you assist the leftists in anything, you are not.
        If you refer to people with whom you disagree as a racist, you are a demagog.
        Pick you own poison.

    • There are conservatives writing here, then there are the nutcase deluded types like flap and zoo and wanumba that can’t realize that their daily spew of anger and idiocy completely invalidate any cogent argument they might wish to make. Perhaps a few prescriptions for blood control and some Straterra might make for a more clear mind and a quality argument.

      Rather, its lunatic fringe anger, elementary school name calling, logical fallacies wide enough to drive a tractor trailer through and silly personal attacks that border on the cretinous and malevolent and spiteful.

      That is no way to win in the arena of public opinion, instead you have confined yourselves to being boxed into the very worst stereotypes that the left has about conservatives. In other words, you have become what the enemy thinks of you, and you have lost. Slinging poo like a caged monkey may be fun to watch for a bit, but it becomes tiresome and says more about the monkey….

      • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

        You write just like a big phony Liberal that I know, a real snarky guy who wants everyone to think he is smart, but they just laugh at him. Perhaps you know Chad Snow.

        • Your anecdotal ramblings are nice, but worthless. You infer that I am a liberal, I assure you I am not. What I am not, is a fringe nutter ultra right wing conservative who looks more foolish with each uneducated post.

          For what its worth, you write like someone on heavy psychotropic medication, or someone who could benefit from psychotropic medication.

          BTW, its only snarky if you don’t understand it.

          • Lampoon writes like someone who is too too familiar with psychology, psychiatry and psychiatric drugs.

            Most people aren’t.

            • I worked for an organization that cared for Severely Mentally Ill patients. Its tough enough, but since the Gov (who has a dangerous SMI son) cut a lot of the funding.

              So, yeah I am familiar with it, but not personally from taking any meds, because that obviously is the snarky reference you tried to make.

              BTW, are you ever going to allow comments on your opinion columns?

              • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

                Actually Wanumba, I would have to think real hard about opening up the opinion section too. You just give a platform to these fakers. Unless of course you write for the Daily Kos.
                I liked your your latest column, it made sense to me, but I do admit to being in the Pearce camp.
                Your numbers also, like Tylers, “extrapolate” [a bit of a Snow Job there] to your conclusions, and make a much smaller leap.
                Plus, you write like adults are going to read your work. Nice job.

              • To reply to yours and Sgt Flapjaw,

                1) The reason I’ve held the comments recently is the quality of pure, rancid, insulting crap I get from the usual suspects, instead of actual sincere debate and discussion. I would open them up again if we could discuss the issues, instead of opening the page to find “you’re a liar” you’re stupid, “you;re lunatic” you’re psychotic.”

                I would like to see a wider variety of people commenting, but I have seen Democrats and Liberals who’ve been hanging here to inform everyone they they are smart and everyone else is stupid, boasting they chase people off. That’s very true, they do chase off commenters.

                So, no comments for now because Lefties can’t debate on issues and instead go for personal attacks.

                2) I have asked Shane about setting up independent open threads to allow for discussion. .. waiting for his reply. When I do return to open posting, and when I do allow for comments, be assured I will delete anything offensive. It has gotten worse with the recall this summer, a bunch of people who hang at Left blogs slimed their way here to disrupt the discussions.

                3) Lampoon, I had to work with a lot of people and families with kids with disabilities when my son was grossly misdiagnosed with autism, so I am very familiar with that circuit, and I would not resort to the derogatory language and accusations you slavishly spread around here of people who diagree with you have must have some sort of mental illness or disability. It diminishes the terms, are grossly inappropriate personalized attacks and are ugly. Given what the Soviets and communists liked to do to political dissenters, destroying them through psychiatric abuse, your pseudo-psyhc and drug-laden comments even evoke a potential threat to free speech and freedom.

                Your experience has not made you more mature about this, so don’t resort to claiming you have a right to talk like that just because you worked in that sector.

                4) Flapjaw
                Thanks for your positive comments. I would have very much enjoyed a lively debate on that topic, but as I mentioned above, I wasn’t able to monitor it at the time. It wasn’t a perfect analysis, but Tyler was claiming a big mandate which wasn’t there to justify the ballot-tipping treachery of the Ephialtes Republicans.

              • Wanumba, only you could somehow bring Soviets and Communists into the discussion, really, you are like Walter Sobchak, except he would always try to turn a conversation into something about the Vietnam war.

                As for not allowing comments, well, no one censors things they agree with….

      • Poor baby. Then why don’t you just keep your twisted ass over at NT full time? I NEVER see a single “conservative” comment there – no ‘discouraging words’ to bunch the undies of you and your libtard marching band. If you want poo, look in the mirror or at an 8 x 10 glossy of your hero Snow. In referring to Snow Job as “Mr. Snow” you have demonstrated beyond any doubt that you don’t belong here. Go back to your pay toilet NT and scream like a girl at the terrible way you were treated on a conservative blog.

        • Well then, zoo, you have the golden ticket to go over there and share your intense wisdom and wit, and perhaps convert the unwashed. Why don’t you do that? Several posters have entered this sewer to debate, it seems to annoy the rats and cockroaches, doesn’t it?

          As for the rest of your post, sorry, but I was last in 3rd grade in the early 70′s, I can’t recall how to talk on your level to respond. I can, however, shake my head and say “tut tut”

          Oh, and to refocus: Lewis won by 12%, he won because a majority of Republicans liked his message and found that they had a real chance to rid LD 18 of an out of touch, entitlement minded, obsolete fool like Pearce. And they did, and its a beautiful thing. Sorry you can’t adapt to the times, enjoy being left behind with the other nimrods.

        • Thanks, Mr. Zoo. If you can’t beat a man’s argument, don’t panic – you can still call him names.

          • You must mean like when you said Joe Arpaio endorsed Perry because his family had a hunting property named “niggerhead?” Perhaps I should convey this little snippit of yours to the LDS church leadership in Mesa – to let them know that where there is sleaze there is fire.

          • “…obsolete fool like Pearce…”

            Looks like your fellow toilet swimming partner didn’t get the message.

          • Zoo pretty much has nothing in his quiver other than name calling that would be considered lowbrow in a 3rd grade classroom. I think his posts demonstrate the appalling lack of educational standards these days, but he seems to think its witty, without the ability to ascertain whether the laughter is with him, or more correctly, at him.

            • Well, not everyone could afford a sheepskin from the University of New Times. Congrats on your associates in fecesology.

              • You sound like a liberal class envy warrior.

                You can go to college, Only thing stopping you is you.

                Envy isn’t a virtue, stop being so mad at the world, it didn’t make you the way you are, you made yourself that way.

  22. Few conservatives are on this site because they are too busy making dinner and helping kids with homework. Or reading a book, tying flies, working on their business plan while writing last minute Christmas cards, or having drinks with their family, friends and neighbors.

    Not SA’s fault, and – ahem – there are exceptions to the definitions of self-reporting conservatives. Cheers.

    • Tyler Montague says:

      Well said.

    • Tyler Montague says:

      I’m sort of disappointed that the whole discussion was a lot of name-calling, and nobody wanted to kick around the last point in my article dealing with how we attract Latinos to the party. I feel like that’s a serious flaw in the way we’ve been communicating our concerns about illegal immigration.

      • The fumbling and bumbling of the GOP when it comes to a ready made gift, the hispanic vote is sad. A bit of outreach, living up to the “big tent” mentality, and some honest marketing would go a long way. However, the party is still infested with the “Latino = illegal” baloney that they are going to fumble away the opportunity.

        I guess another generation of old school (non)thinkers has to run its course before the party will be taken seriously by hispanics. Never ignore demographics, its a stupid thing to do that will cause you to lose in the end. A party of angry white guys is not going anywhere in the next 20 years.

      • How does the pro-illegal predominately white crowd set the tone of debate and discussion between two disaparate groups when it tars one side unfairly with a dirty racist brush, and terrifying the other side they profess to support.

        How are the two sides supposed to discuss issues if both sides have been fed lies about each other by political”facilitators” who only look at the world through a racist lens?

      • Flake Lewis says:

        Your last point is an easy one, Get the Mormons in West Mesa to go out and register illegals.

        • Tht wouldn’t be fair to the legal immigrants. Think of the many years, how much paperwork and how much money they spent to become legal.

          I respect that very much.

      • Well Tyler, please stop calling yourself a conservative, you are besmirching the term.

        I realize that to you votes of Hispanics are more important than other votes. To me, race and ethnicity are unimportant, but to you, they appear to be vitally important.

        Your only “concern” with respect to aliens who illegally enter this country is how to grant them amnesty.

        Finally, yes you have communicated you opposition to enforcing laws on the books. Just like Obama.

        Looking forward to your pending attacks on Sheriff Joe, and you endorsement of Obama as your type.

    • And we are so thrilled that you finished early rinsing out a few things to bless us with “conservative” observation just seven minutes earlier:

      “…Oh, and by the way “curtails our quality of life” is code for “non-white people populating our neighborhoods and schools.” Probably not what they mean, but who knows…”

  23. Ok Tyler, I’ll bite. Is anyone here comfortable with a political strategy that identifies an ethnic group as a target for a specific set of outreach programs? Can’t a political party succeed by simply appealing to a larger group of people, as people, without singling them out by their race? Can you really accurately identify political characteristics if you know some of the person’s ethnic ones. And if not, are you going to keep trying?

    What is it about a political party you are a member of that would offer something to one ethnic group that it doesn’t offer to another? I mean, aren’t Republican principles universal? Are they color-sensitive, or color-blind? Are black or Latino Republicans worth more to the GOP than white ones? What motivates a party to attract people of one ethnicity over another?

    • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

      Very good Foodie, written by a “True Conservative”. Tyler of course is a true faker.

    • The bigger question is what motivates a party to REPEL people of one ethnicity? Turning off one-third of the electorate by playing to old white people’s fears is not a good long term strategy for success for the Arizona GOP. Tyler raises a very good question and, in the process, shows that his concern is for the long-term health of the party.

      • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

        The bigger question is how much business you are trying to build up by “reverse” racism? You bottom feeders are shameless.

        • and now it’s time to say goodbye
          to Chad and all his kin
          and we would like to thank you folks
          for bruised triceps and shins
          you’re all invited back next week
          to this in-fir-mary
          to file a claim and have a cup
          of His-pan-ic pan-der-ing

          …sit a spell…kick your backpack off…
          …y’all come back now…h’yere!

    • Tyler Montague says:

      Foodie,

      I don’t think we go out and imitate liberals and have all sorts of separate programs for different groups. The Democrats are the party that is a conglomeration of whining grievance groups. We don’t do that.

      We can’t however alienate large segments of society, and expect to compete in elections over the long haul.

      Sometimes issues are a matter of principle–a matter of right or wrong–and we don’t care who we alienate. Abortion is wrong. I don’t care if I were a 10% minority in that opinion; I’m not changing. Other issues, like illegal immigration, deal with acts that are wrong simply because we have decided to say they’re wrong, not because they are wrong in and of themselves, like murder or adultery. Crossing our borders without permission is one of those. Before people like “wanumba or flapjaw” freak out, I completely agree that we have a right to secure our border and determine who is here or not. I think we should give illegal aliens who commit felonies, etc., the boot instantly. I think we should rid ourselves of people who simply come here to try and hitch up to the socialist gravy train that we’ve allowed this country to establish (and I think we should roll back the welfare state dramatically, but let’s stay on topic).

      But…why is illegal immigration a problem, and what does it look like when it is solved? Well, I don’t want the whole third world flooding us out, and I won’t those who come to integrate well and respect our laws; I want them to pay their own way; and I don’t want to import any criminals. I frankly don’t care if those already here who are decent folks (in other words they meet the criteria I just laid out) are granted some form of “amnesty.” For the life of me, I find it baffling that some people insist that the absolute only way to solve it is to deport each and every last soul. Screen them, make them pay some fines, if they owe back taxes make them pay those. DON’T give them citizenship unless they leave and come back the right way. Hispanics would accept all of that without offense. But when people like Russell Pearce blame every last problem we have on illegals, and promote solutions that essentially say, “We could solve our problems by getting rid of ALL of these people,” it alienates Hispanics. It looks and feels like racism to them. I don’t care if they shouldn’t feel that way; you might even have a good argument that I agree with in principle. However, they DO feel alienated, and they do feel that the rhetoric is motivated by racism and xenophobia, and they do see the Republican Party as being hostile to them. Read the polls folks. Watch us steadily lose the Latino vote. You can wish it weren’t so all you want, and defend your position all you want, but the facts are that the Pearce approach will permanently screw the Republican Party, and it needn’t be so. We can have good leadership that solves the immigration problem without alienating Hispanics. But it seems the extreme right of our party is hellbent on driving us into the ditch on this issue.

    • Tyler Montague says:

      Here is our County Attorney, Bill Montgomery, presenting a framework for a solution that I pretty much agree 100% with. We need intelligent thought like this on the issue.

  24. Sgt. Flapjaw says:

    So if a white person was to have someone of Latino persuasion give him the finger, call him gringo, or maybe wave the Mexican flag in his face and yell La Raza, He would not be racist for saying that he’d like to use a gun on the Latino? Bet me Tyler. You race baiters are all alike, I don’t think that you would welcome the victim to your side. You are the Al Sharpton of LD18. What kind of people do you have over there. If I were a member of LD18 I would make moves to get rid of you.

    • Tyler Montague says:

      Why do you say I’m a race-baiter? You’re making a lot of assumptions about what I think. You know one thing about me–that I disagree with Pearce’s tone and some of his content on immigration–and you’ve jumped to all sorts of conclusions, and are ready to call me a RINO, and all sorts of things. That’s crazy.

      Your scenario is a little murky. I wouldn’t want to threaten someone with a gun for calling some names. And I think the La Raza people are racists. And I wouldn’t blame you for being mad at a guy that did that to you, but threatening deadly force in that scenario is legally unsound, no?

      • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

        Tyler, you seem just to want to write just to write. I refer you to Your new comrade Fred and your remarks to him. Your new buddy would prefer to use a gun because of some aledged slight. I simply turned it around on you. Why aren’t I your new buddy too?
        I didn’t refer to pearce at all, and have never called you a rino. You are race baiting in your responce to your pal Fred.
        Your whining is unbecoming. For all I know Fred is an old buddy of yours, you do realize that your credibility is in the dirt.

        • Bingo! I was wondering myself WHERE this guy goes slummin to hear remarks like this? Is it simply because he is a piss-poor driver?

          • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

            Zoo, for all I know he is an old friend of Tyler’s. From what I know of him, there is quite a few LD18 P.C.s that don’t think too highly of him. Before the Pearce recall date even happened I heard his name as I was talking to some LD18er’s. Not a good rep.

        • Flap jaw an zoo. You are a copule of whining little bitches. I dont usually respond to idiots like you, but it just irks me that you keep running your mouths.
          I dont know Tyler. Zoo, I dont go slumming anywhere but the Frys or Costco that you probably visit. You probalby are the asshole that makes those comments in public.
          Uneducated, unsuccessful poeple usually conjure up some scapegoat to explain their failures in life. The La Raza people are great at this, and so are you. You say that 60 to 70% of the Mexicans are pro amensty – do you mean Mexicans just here from Mexico or do you just lump anybody with brown skin into one label?
          I think you are one of those filthy stinking thieving mormons that Gov Boggs expelled from Missouri. You should be deported. Maybe you are from a family that traces their line to the South and once owned slaves. Ill bet your family argued the rule of law to keep slavery. Or maybe you are from one of those unpatriotic, rebel traitors that broke the law and killed English soldiers to start this country. You supported law breakers you idiot.

          • Well.
            That wasn’t hard to strip the civility, “reasonable” facade off, was it?

          • I am referring to Mexicans who vote, and I stand behind what I said. Let’s go all the way back to 2004 with Arizona Proposition 200 – 40% yea, 60% nay from Mexican voters.

            In the 2010 Nevada senatorial race, Harry Reid promised AMNESTY right before the election and barely squeeked out a victory with 90% of the Mexican vote. In the days that followed, Mexican organizations were bragging that THEY saved his hide.
            http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/11/how_should_harry_reid_say_grac.html

            Flagrant reconquista Raul “boycott my state-please” Grijalva barely squeeked out his 2010 re-election with 90% Mexican support in a district that is 51% Mexican.

            You seem to be seeped in “whitey hates me” fantasy. I’d stay away from that El Rancho ground beef and sign up with Sears Driving School.

          • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

            Well Fred, thanks for the history lesson, I guess. You seem to have an anger problem, and I bet it is really hard for you to pick out Moromons and the Southerners among all of us white people. What to do, what to do? I know……Go nuts!

      • Tyler,

        Keep it up.

        You classic name-calling is hillarious.

        Those who oppose amnesty are, according to Tyler, “crazy.”

        Hmm.

        Back in the 70s the Communists in the Soviet Union deemed those who disagreed with Communism to be “crazy.”

        So, what’s the next leftist cant?

        • Something to be wary of:
          The Soviets had a bad practice of dumping their political opponents into psychiatirc wards and pumping them full of drugs to shut them up.

          It’s a bit creepy that so many commentators on the Left resort to psychiatric references, insanity, psychotic excuses and invoke psycotrophic drugs to attack those who disagree with them. Just scan this thread alone and see how many times that sort of pseudo-psych rhetoric pops up.

          • Aristotle noted in his Rhetoric that there are three major means of argument: logoc (logic), ethos (trust) and pathos (emotion).

            Lefties have problems with the first two, and therefor resort to name-calling.

  25. Gee, are we bantering with THE Tyler Montague, a shot at the infamous Bank (credit cards for illegals) of Amexica, or is this Ty junior? How many ‘goos’ could be in Phoenix? That certainly would explain the suck’em ideology. I thought I smelled $$$ (see December 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm).

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tyler-montague/12/774/b40

    • CD6 Businessman says:

      Wow zoo, you really nailed Tyler on this one. So let me ask you a few questions based on your brilliant comment regarding Tyler’s employment. Would you suggest a new E-Verify program for customers now too? Is Tyler not conservative enough because Bank of America does not prevent liberals from opening accounts too?

      Not everyone can be true patriots and reap the benefits of multiple government pensions. Some of us have to actually work within this economy and your comment stinks of ignorance.

      • Tell me currency sucker, are you perpetrating here that BofA UNKNOWINGLY issued credit cards to illegal aliens? If you are, then you’re the slimebucket liar that you project. Thousands of customers didn’t walk away (including myself after 25 years) from BofA based on innuendo. I suppose next you will blowhard that this rejection was “symbolic”, even though BofA layed-off 6,000 employees a short six months later. This upheaval happened 4 years ago, not in “this” economy, dumbass. Business/profit driven filth like yourself is why we have illegals backing up in our toilets.

      • CD6 Businessman,

        Are you really that ignorant?

        Try opening up a bank account without photoidentification.

        Truth is that B of A knowingly accepts matricular cards as identification.

        Is this what you want?

        Further, why do you assert that Tyler is a conservative, absent evidence to the contrary?

        Also, why do you bring up the irrelevant ‘red herring’ of “preventing liberals from opening accounts”? Is it because you cannot address the issue presented and want to change the subject?

        Further, what is the nonsense about “multiple government pensions”? Did you just want to pad your post with more nonsense.

        Finally, if any comment “stinks of ignorance,” your comment would win the prize.

  26. Lampoon says:
    December 23, 2011 at 6:43 pm
    As for not allowing comments, well, no one censors things they agree with….
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    WHat a phony martyr-trip. I can yank any crap comment that does not not adhere to a standard of civility.

    You can make an effort to clean yourself up and make a valid political comment without the personalized attacks if you want your opinion heard. And this is a private blog, so there isn’t any menace of big government dropping on your head and throwing you in the gulag for political heresy, wihich is the REAL basis of censorship, not this blog comments stuff. You can spew ALL YOU WANT on other blogs, so you can easily get your crud out all over without spreading it here on SA.

    What a crock to whinge some sort of exaggerated hardship that you are being informed to do no more than the equivalent effort of “no shoes, no shirt no service” to have a comment stay up on ONE specific thread.

    waaaambulance!

    • Tyler Montague says:

      Wanumba, your response article was full of inaccuracies. My pie charts contain voter registration and voter turnout data that is sourced directly from the Secretary of State’s office. You article has incomplete and inaccurate data that doesn’t even match the official certified election numbers. And you completely missed my point: While the left certainly enjoyed and cheered on Pearce’s demise, Pearce also suffered a significant loss among Republicans and Independents, so much so, that if this had been a primary, and we removed the Democratic votes, Pearce STILL would have lost. You didn’t even address this point other than to say that Pearce’s former voters didn’t show up since turnout was low this time. You didn’t prove that Pearce’s past voters didn’t switch this time (I was one of Pearce’s past voters), and didn’t make a convincing argument that the same results wouldn’t have held even if turnout was higher. Polling showed Pearce losing by a slight margin among all registered voters; while turnout differences may have exaggerated Pearce’s loss, all indications were that he still would have lost even with high turnout numbers.

      Sorry. And apparently you requested that nobody be able to comment under your article, which suggests you are unwilling to let your writing endure any scrutiny.

  27. Tyler Montague says:

    Glad to have you on the team, Fred. You’re my kind of guy.

    Now if a majority of Latinos felt the same way as you, we wouldn’t have any worries about being racist or xenophobic in our approach to solving immigration. But, unfortunately that’s not the case.

  28. It’d be a constructive start if you didn’t invoke me as your example of “freak-out. Did I say anywhere that I want to depart anyone en mass?

    If you would READ CAREFULLY what I say instead of freaking over, to use YOUR terms, you would note I have been consistently warning that a fair resolution to this issue is urgently required and that legal citizens should not be expected to dangle forever while politicians dither and dodge, because every population in the world has a breaking point, and it’s terrible folly to push them that far.

    I am the ONLY one in this mass of “caring” pontificators who’s actually had to work in atrocious conditions with battered illegals. I have explained that numerous times for the purpose of CONTEXT for ALL of my comments, and in return am MOCKED for it. I started nicely, naively in good faith, but I have learned the hard way by abusive attacks that “civility” isn’t part of the game here.

    For the folks who claim, “We can’t just deport everyone, ” I have WARNED that it is very possible, even by the millons, because I’ve witnessed it. It’s NOT pretty and I wouldn’t wish that on ANYONE. You don’t know what it is in human terms, I do. Yet you pompously sniff that I would be so cruel to promote it.
    Does it make sense that I who’s been in it would be so easy to be a promoter of it?

    Bu the delay and political fighting over this issue is delaying a FAIR resolution built on SHARED CONSENSUS. The Democrats use highly charged,ugly racist language that actually drives the two sides APART, poisoning the grounds for discussion. They don’t want people working things out.

    That is cynically leaving legal citizens and illegals in LIMBO… and it cannot go on like that forever.

    An unfair fix isn’t resolution, it’s strife and chaos… while delayed resolution flirts with outright explosive disaster.

    You don’t even “get” my points – from someone who has experience in this – so how can you possible “get” anyone else’s?

    Or you do “get” it and you find it politically inconvenient.

    WHich is it?

    I don’t think you’ll accept the only other alternative that you might be dumb as a bag of rocks.

  29. Tyler,

    It is really funny how you keep repeating leftist cant.

    Hispanic votes are more important than other votes. Foodie caught you on that one.

    Those who support enforcing the law are”racist or xenophobic.”

  30. Tyler Montague says:

    Well, Wanumba, if you’re not one who chants the anti-amnesty mantra, blocking other practical solutions, then I owe you an apology. I want the feds to do their job and solve this, and I don’t blame the states for acting in the vacuum of their negligence, although I don’t think state-level action will be best.

    What do you think of what Bill Montgomery says here?:

  31. Wait a minute… Is this JT Ready?

  32. You’re pretty clever for a prostitute!

  33. I don’t chant anything, that’s psychological conditioning last seen in full bloom in the creepy #OWS human microphone or whatever that ritual is, not at any “Conservative” activity.

    So, back to amnesty: what do you think about blanket amnesty for Obama’s illegal, DUI, selling alcohol to minors, uncle Onyango Obama and his OTHER illegal, welfare-supported Auntie?

    The amnesty discussions seem to focus on ONE nationality without considering that the US is a nation of immigrants, legal and otherwise, so a policy that is constructed in favortism is guaranteed to cause huge problems nationally.

    I’m constantly astounded at the people who sniff that “Conservatives” only see “brown people,” when the Open Borders political crowd ONLY thinks and talks in terms of “brown = Hispanic.”
    Which is nonsense. The majority of the world is some sort of “brown” – a lot of it much darker than anyone south of our border, but it’s like those folks don’t exist in these amnesty calculations, nor do the “whites” or “Orientals” who also are present in illegal numbers.

    “Brown” becomes a mindless bludgeon to beat people with, but not to actually get ANY reasonable consensus developed that is appropriate for the ENTIRE country, not just some narrow special interest group..

Speak Your Mind

*