The Lobby Needs More Room


by Bill Ponath

The history of civilized man has seen a never-ending evolution of what we call a “system of  justice.”  It was not until well after Christ that the concept of a judge and jury was born to enable the accused in criminal matters to be judged by a group of his/her peers.  As a matter of fact; in ancient Rome there was no such thing as a “criminal court.”   If a person were to have been criminally wronged it was his/her responsibility to pursue a civil claim against the accused.  The government took no interest in prosecuting any crimes unless they were against the government itself.  Essentially; a person with no immediate family could be robbed and killed in the middle of the street in broad daylight and there would be no prosecution because no-one had standing to pursue the claim.

My; how things have changed.  In today’s world we are all judges, juries and prosecutioners who look only to the daily news and commentaries to reach judgment.  We assume that everything we see and hear; especially from any source of reasonably reliable information; such as the news media, is the gospel truth.  We feel no responsibility to question the conclusion reached by a public figure.  The problem is; if we are all guilty of everything we are accused of; Satan’s waiting area would simply not be large enough to process all of the new admittees.

Case in point: I enjoy listening to Barry Young every morning on KFYI but I am consistently baffled by his attacks on former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce.  Mind you; Senator Pearce is a friend of mine and that may appear to suggest bias; but with or without any predilection of opinion concerning anyone’s character I am frustrated by Mr. Young’s assumption that Senator Pearce participated in some sort of conspiracy to plant Olivia Cortes on the ballot for Senator Pearce’s seat in the senate.  Let’s look at the facts:

  1. Senator Pearce is; in no uncertain terms, the “father” of SB 1070; the legislation that adopted already existing federal law into a much less stringent set of Arizona statutes.  This made Senator Pearce a target for the liberal media to effectively “take him down.”
  2. The media fueled a recall effort that was; in no uncertain terms, baseless.
  3. Certain members of a tea party conspired to plant a sham candidate on the ballot in order to dilute Jerry Lewis’ support.
  4. Certain members of Senator Pearce’s political panel; including some of his own relatives, perceived the benefits of this independent candidate without any knowledge or understanding of the basis for her political support and actually assisted in the effort.
  5. Only after it became known that Ms. Cortes was not an actual candidate was any assistance and support withdrawn from her campaign.

Under no circumstances is there any shred of evidence that Senator Pearce, his campaign staff, or his relatives had any knowledge of the sham while they were taking advantage of it.  Nevertheless; they are duly tried, prosecuted, and convicted by Mr. Young and the rest of the media for a crime they did not commit.  The sad truth of this is that the State of Arizona has now been robbed of a man of unblemished character who has served us in law enforcement for many years, has been shot and wounded by criminals, and has almost lost his own son in the same fashion.  Yet he is a very happy man when he observes large groups of newly naturalized citizens of the United States; primarily Hispanics, as they are sworn in near the State’s Capital.  I have yet to see any of the liberal media; or even Barry Young, comment on this.  I must assume that this revelation of the actual truth may serve to confuse and mislead the propagandized readers and electorate and it therefore would be nonsensical to acknowledge this reality.  It is therefore best that the media let the sleeping dog lie and allow the general public to have grossly distorted opinions of one of their greatest heroes.  Sounds fair to me.

Senator Pearce; as I am certain we are all aware is not the only victim of the distortion of the truth.  I do not personally know former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas any more than occasional meetings and I therefore can make no comment concerning his matters before the Court.  I am nevertheless honored to claim that Rachel Alexander is a close friend who is also the victim of; sadly enough, malicious prosecution simply because she was doing her job.  Unfortunately; when doing one’s job may interfere with the goals of someone in power, somebody has to take the fall.

Let me put this in perspective:  Ms. Alexander has not discussed with me any of the behind-the-scenes details of what led to her being accused of these compromises in ethical duties.  She was working at her post as Assistant Maricopa County Prosecutor.  Her boss; Mr. Thomas, assigned to her the prosecution of certain elected officials.  She was presented with facts and evidence that clearly raised reasonable suspicion concerning wrongs committed by these individuals.  It was therefore her duty to proceed with levying charges against them.  UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE DID SHE DO ANYTHING WRONG.  Nevertheless; exposure of these facts concerning these elected officials meant that they needed to fight back.  Please notice that there has never been a shred of allegation that Ms. Alexander did anything unethical in the rest of her life.  The ONLY claim that can be made may be that she was working very hard to do her job.

Ms. Alexander’s need to answer her accusers is entirely political.  It is work to take the attention off of the accused and shift it to the accuser.  It has thus far been successful; which raises the point, why continue to accuse Ms. Alexander of any wrong-doing when there is no shred of evidence that she was not simply doing her job? . . . . . Because somebody has to take the fall to save these politicos from personal humiliation.

It is an unfortunate circumstance of life that we are all wrongly accused of indiscretions throughout our existence.  It began in childhood with finger pointing at our siblings and even the family pet.  Even I must confess to having been prosecuted by the State Bar Association in the early 90’s similarly to Ms. Alexander.  I therefore understand the burden that she will carry whether she is completely acquitted or whether they determine that she deserves the least available public admonishment of a censure; which is a published reprimand without any suspension of her license.

Let me tell you why I was censured.  The facts are that I never did anything wrong but I nevertheless failed to oversee what my employees were doing and therefore my trust account didn’t balance.  The reason I didn’t see what was wrong with the account was that certain employees were scheming to embezzle money from the firm.  They put up smoke screens and hid from me what they were doing.  I nevertheless confessed to this and I simply made sure that the final reports specifically stated that I did nothing wrong, but that the errors were based on“negligence.”

The problem with this is that most people who see that I was censured ASSUME that I did something dastardly wrong and that I am a hardened criminal.  The worse problem is that I am in fact responsible for the errors made by my employees but that Senator Pearce and Ms. Alexander did absolutely nothing wrong.  They never had ill intent, they never consciously acted to wrong anyone.  They were simply doing their jobs and they were doing them quite well; only to be dragged into “politically necessary” damage control by their opponents fueled by the almighty left-wing media.

I beg of any who read this: do not rush to conclusions until you know and understand the facts.  That is a patent expression of “innocent until proven guilty” but it is painfully obvious that the media do not grasp the significance of those words.  Let me put it this way: Senator Pearce and Rachel Alexander both knew by virtue of considerable experience with politics and the media that any misstep would be attacked without mercy.  Do you really believe that either of them would have even contemplated doing anything like what they accused of?  If so; they are not the real victims of medial prosecution, you the general public are.  You are hypnotized into believing trumped up exaggerations produced by those who resist the good of what these people are doing for justice.  It is a baffling quandary that the very system we fight to defend is the very same thing that fights to defeat us.

Justice will begin to be served when Senator Pearce is back in office and when all charges against Rachel Alexander are summarily dropped.  That service will only end when every person acknowledges that these dedicated individuals are in fact innocent of any wrongdoing.

Please tell Satan to cancel the remodeling.


Comments

  1. Speaks volumes that Bill Ponath is willing to put his name on this. Russell Pearce and Rachel “collateral damage” Alexander are facing some powerful enemies. I wouldn’t want them coming after me. Try to stand up for what’s right and you will be viciously attacked by the left and tried in the media. The so-called mainstream media never reports the full accurate story, only what they want you to hear, the sanitized version. Even if you are eventually exonerated, it doesn’t matter, the damage has been done, all people remember any more is the constant insinuations of guilt. No wonder hardly anyone decent has the guts to run for office anymore. Doesn’t matter how ethical you are, if you are a conservative, they will smear your name and make you look like the worst scumbag featured in the New Times….

    • Raising Arizona says:

      I am sure Bill Ponath is a great guy, but he is either hopelessly naive, ignorant of the facts, or willfully turning a blind eye to what occurred during the recall election. Just prior to the emergence of Olivia Cortes as a (fake) candidate, Russell Pearce was caught (what turned out to be red-handed) emerging from Courtney Snell’s home with Greg Western and RP’s campaign manager. I take it Bill would have us believe that Western was there telling Pearce the bad news about his plan to manage the campaign of someone who was running against (see in support of) him.

      Did anyone notice that in all of Pearce’s rehearsed denials of not knowing Cortes, he never denied not knowing that his supporters were hard at work on her behalf? Perhaps not, but many LD18 voters noticed Pearce’s tacit approval in the way of his pronounced silence once it became clear to everyone what was going on. To continue trying to deny that RP had nothing to do with the sham Cortes candidacy is nonsense. Karma is alive and well, though, and this dumb ploy backfired big time and clearly cost Pearce more than the 200 or so votes Cortes stole from Jerry Lewis.

      To all of the flap hard Chicken Littles out there afraid that the left will start using the recall to bring down other conservatives: care to make a small wager of $1000 that another successful recall won’t happen for another ten years? Come on people. Put your money where your pea brains have led your mouths.

      • Whether I am a great guy or not I leave to my tombstone engraver. My naivete is an anomaly based on the fact that I have sat as a judge for thousands of civil and criminal cases and have hopefully developed a knack for peering into the core of one’s being to determine the sincerity of one’s plea. Yet I struggle to give the best credit I can for one who pleads his/her case before me. As for ignorant; I hopelessly plead guilty; simply because each of us has not been a fly on the wall to gain first-hand knowledge of what has transpired in the offices of Senator Pearce or at the Maricopa County Attorney’s headquarters. I nevertheless have first-hand knowledge of a number of things that are not matters of public record:

        1. There are few who deserve unlimited trust. Yet in my experience I can tell you that even though I practice as a debtor’s counsel in bankruptcy court I can swear to you that creditor’s counsel like Madeleine Wanslee and Alan Levinsky will never betray my trust. They will tell me things that may damage their clients’ interests if there is an ethical duty to do so regardless of the consequences. I know for a fact that Russell Pearce and Rachel Alexander fall into that category. I will trust each of them more than I trust myself.

        2. Ms. Cortes’ candidacy was in fact a windfall for Senator Pearce. But I guarantee that he did not personally know of the sham being perpetrated until it was too late. I do not know his relatives or his campaign staff and therefore cannot vouch for anyone else; but I will certainly vouch for him.

        3. Circumstantial evidence is a very wicked sword. It cannot be cross-examined. Whatever transpired in Courtney Snell’s home is a matter of conjecture. I stand my ground with a man who I trust because assuming the worst is the very crux of the article that I wrote.

        Nobody is perfect; but I tend to lean to those who have been batting a thousand for a long time. It is just common sense.

    • Joan Ponath says:

      It does speak volumes of Bill Ponath!! We are living in an hour where we NEED to speak up and/or defend the others who are standing in the gap for conservative issues and the same values our forefathers were martyred for . . . I plan on standing with American and fighting for all she holds dear. Peace out Homies! :)

  2. Law and Order says:

    Repeat “Russell Pearce is racist” enough times and people will buy into it. Write tons of newspaper articles about the Fiesta Bowl scandal with his name as the top target – even though he was completely exonerated and other lawmakers were much more involved – and his reputation will fall. If you can’t take someone out because they’re too popular and honest, take them out by writing nonstop smear articles about them. It works!

  3. I know Bill Ponath and he is a man of great integrity. He has been a pro tem judge for around 10 years. The fact the State Bar censured him over his own employees attempting to embezzle money from him tells you volumes about the way the State Bar is run. When this is all over, I fully believe Andrew Thomas and his deputy county attorneys will be exonerated, and the real slimy politicians – the Maricopa County Supervisors and their comrades in the judiciary – will be finally punished for the corrupt acts they have gotten away with for YEARS!

  4. Barry Young must be the “point man” for Rupert Murdoch and company. Murdoch came out publicly in June 2010 and pushed for amnesty. His per$onal views have been injected throughout his FOX and Clear Channel networks. KSAZ channel 10 attacked Russell Pearce for a solid 8-10 minutes just about ten days before the recall signature deadline – as if to give it the final push. Although neither KFYI or KSAZ are full time pro-illegal pro-amnesty, they stab at it spiractically. KSAZ’s current campaign is targeting Joe Arpaio. Almost daily, they preen the gutters looking for the next person who claims they were racially-something by MCSO, and play it like a soap opera on Telemundo. A combo a flashing pictures and dramatic sinister background music really fires up the psychotic left and the Mexican Lobby, emboldening walking fungus like Danny Ortega, Steve Gallardo, Mary Rose Wilcox, and Salvador Reza . The “conservative” network is rotten from the head down and now resemble the lowest of the low at KPNX/Arizona Republic/Gannett.

    • Really Zoo? So much paranoia, where to start. Young is point man for Murdoch, got any proof? Does Murdoch own Clear Channel? No. Do some homework.

      Really, even for a nutter, that is a silly post.

      • Owned outright or not, KFYI is affiliated with FOX who is a large part of their news reporting. I understand that this connection zooms over the head of a leftasst like yourself, and you have an orgasm each time either slanders Pearce or Arpaio; but the point I was making is that under the guise of “conservatism”, the two are involved in covert propaganda in the interest of remaining connected with the slime demographic, to which you are deeply rooted. There is no doubt whatsoever that Murdoch’s influence has taken hold in these two media outlets, and if that metamorphosis has escaped part or most of their audience, that was the contrivance from the outset.

        • So, you admit that Murdoch has no actual role at Clear Channel, and then you blather on and on.

          Just want to hold you to the truth, being that you have zero proof other than your fevered opinions that Murdoch runs or influences Clear Channel.

          You have no idea how unintentionally funny your posts are. You get extra points for using words with more than two syllables, I know that must have been difficult for you.

          • Conservative American says:

            So are you a man in a woman’s body or a woman in a man’s body, Lampoon? I mean if you are presenting yourself here as a man but you have the body of a woman that would make you the ultimate hypocrite.

  5. Fast News Fred says:

    I’m fascinated watching the Maricopa County Supervisors’ casualty list grow as they have to take more people down to continue protecting themselves and their role in the corrupt Taj Mahal Court Tower. First they went after Andrew Thomas’s bar license to stop him from prosecuting them. Then they reported Sheriff Arpaio to the feds to stop him from investigating them. To successfully get Thomas, they had to also file bar complaints against his apolitical, lifelong prosecutor Lisa Aubuchon. She could care less about politics, she was just doing her job. Then they filed complaints against Thomas’s special assistant Rachel Alexander, solely because she is a blogger in town who posted press releases from Thomas. When it came out at the Bar’s trial of them that Alexander actually had very little to do with the prosecution of the supervisors, her boss Peter Spaw did almost all the work, they had to go after Alexander’s boss – apolitical lifelong prosecutor Spaw next. Then the supervisors’ engineer in charge of the Court Tower threatened to squeak about the corruption behind the court tower, but was instructed by the supervisors to keep his mouth shut. So they fired him, the next collateral damage. Then the supervisors fired some county employees who actually DID do something wrong, accepting bribes from the court tower contractors. Best fire them and not suspend them so they don’t talk!

    Friends, who will the supervisors take down next to keep protecting themselves? Let’s make our New Year’s predictions now.

  6. Well, when the poster wrote….oh….gotta go….the black helicopters are over my house again!

    • Oh wasn’t it Rob just complaining on an earlier thread this week about posters replyig to posts with the same old cliches?

      “black helicopters” — oh that’s an articulate comment about an article written by someone who was commenting from hard experience, and to his credit, managed to convey no trace of bile or snark, despite ample excuse to be bitter.

      What’s your excuse for invoking cheap pavlovian catch-words designed to summarily dismiss what he said?

      • Sgt. Flapjaw says:

        Wanumba, it’s just Rob with another one of his one sentence pot-shots. No substance, just words.

      • “Oh wasn’t it Rob just complaining on an earlier thread this week about posters replyig to posts with the same old cliches?”

        Ummm…no, Wanumba.
        It was Rob pointing out the deflection and complete ignorance of the actual topic in many posts.

        Kinda like what you’re trying.

        lol….

  7. More pro Pearce bilge. He lost, get over it, his constituents threw him out, overwhelmingly. Corrupt and arrogant politicians don’t last long.

    Anger, denial, bargaining, depression, acceptance, get through those steps, you will be better for it.

    • Yeah, I thougth it was worthwhile to look at the actual numbers which do NOT support ANY statement of “his constituents threw him out overwhelmingly.”

      • 12%, that’s a whupping!

        Sorry you still are in denial, just a few more steps and you may think clearly.

      • Kenny Jacobs says:

        Would that be the post you wrote but don’t allow any comments on? I guess if no one can refute you you can believe you’re correct.

        • Yep. I wasn’t around to supervise comments, so I didn’t open them. If you review the quality of comments my stuff gets, you will notice they don’t add anything except straight insults… so no loss to anyone, frankly. No value added in any measure.

          I am sensitive to the fact that people do want to comment, so I will open, when I am able to keep an eye on them, and under civility rules.

          It was outright abusive and insulting behavior by the actions of commentators that closed the comments, not any insecurity on my part regarding a honest disagreement or debate. I notice that few care to acknowledge their responsibility for the consequences of their own behaviors, demanding, demanding without giving anything in return in simple courtesy.

          • Lame excuse Wanumba, you have been posting every day since you put that up. It was pretty gutless of you. Either stand up for your writings, or be seen as a hypocrite.

            BTW, I’ve seen the “quality” of your posts and your friends Zoo and CA’s posts when an article is posted that you disagree with…glass houses and whatnot…

            • I stand up for my writings. I simply didn’t leave an open thread. Do you know the definition of the word hypocrite? It’s thrown around so much it’s like some cheap, dyed rabbits foot charm to settle all discussions.
              It’s been reduced to utter nonsense by the Left.

              Now, the original concept really does exist, whether the Left uses it dishonestly or not.

              It’s interesting that “hypocrite” as a Leftie no-no is straight out of Jesus’s assessment of the pompous sleazoids who tried to pretend their lives were anything more than a perpetual state of lying.

              These would be the very same hostile scoffers who spent none of their time actually listening to him, and taking what he said to heart, but trying every rhetorical trick and argument they could think of to trap him in an inconsistency in order to discredit him.

              For the time and effort spent trying to deny Christ, somehow it always circles right back to him, oddly enough.

              • OK, in your usual disjointed and unfocused “logic” you somehow equate your not allowing comment to Jesus?

                Really?

                Quit using Jesus as a cheap prop to hide behind.

                (BTW, you ain’t no Jesus)

                Nobody &#$%( with the Jesus.

              • Conservative American says:

                Woman in a man’s body or man in a woman’s body in your case, Lampoon? Understanding the precise nature of your predicament may help to explain youe views and behaviors.

              • CA, keep your bi-curious fetishes off the board, they only serve to make you look like a creepy stalker.

              • Conservative American says:

                Sorry, I don’t think so, LOL!

                So, which are you?

          • Christopher Jacoby says:

            Wanumba, WordPress has built-in functionality to defer the posting of comments until they’ve been reviewed. I think that will solve your problem with being unable to supervise comments while you are away.

  8. No it was the Democrats allowed to vote in what should have been a Republican Primary that recalled Russell Pearce, at lease get that correct. I would love Russell to run for Supervisor, help us rid this country of the corruption from that bunch. The legislature should have long ago passed tort reform and got rid of the influence of the bar to manipulate the legal license of the conservative attorneys like Thomas, Alexander and Aubuchon and make the Bar Assoc pay for any and all legal cost associate with their witch hunts.

    • So, you are for the rule of law, except when you are against it? The recall law is the law, and it was followed, and a whole lot of Republicans tossed Russ out on his behind.

      • Conservative American says:

        Well, if you are a man in a woman’s body, Lampoon, isn’t that being a hypocrite of the highest order? You present yourself here as a man when you have the body of a woman? Why don’t you try being honest for a change.

  9. Sgt. Flapjaw says:

    Bill Ponath [whom I don’t know] has just about put a bulls eye on the cause/problem with the media and peoples willingness to believe what they read or hear without applying critical thought to the subject.
    When we have public officials who try to do their jobs, as citizens we are obliged to support them and help in the fight against the nay sayers and political opponants. Over the past few years we have seen a vigorious attack on our conservative officials who are trying to enforce the laws and maintain order.
    We have a leftist cabal who will partner with any radical groups that they can find to destroy established institutions that we need to maintain that order.

  10. Excellent article. Thanks!

  11. It is deeply offensive to see one compare Alexander’s situation with Pearce’s. Perhaps they have the same political leanings and share common enemies, but not much else. Pearce is his own man, elected by his constituents and recently replaced. Alexander answers to her boss, and the state bar, or did while she was a county employee. If Pearce were recalled because his constituents didn’t like his haircut, no one should call that a miscarriage of justice. There is no conceivable remedy. It’s politics, perhaps a little cheaper than it should be. To say justice is served by him being reelected is just dumb.

    Alexander did not appear to be calling the shots, offering herself as the sole point person on issue X like Pearce did. She had absolutely nothing to gain by the position she was in and only a little to lose, she had a life before Thomas was elected, I assume. Pearce finds himself in the same muck he’s always been in, unlike Alexander, he’s a politician who deserves his the fate he chose.

  12. False accusations can come from unexpected places, and it hurts. When I was about 11, my mother accused me of putting dirty hand prints on the walls in my room. Why me? Because my little sister was only seven and could not reach that high, so I got in trouble.

    Years later, my sister admitted that she and her girlfriend had stood on my bed so they could reach their hands high enough to implicate me. By then it was too late. The damage had been done.

    OK, that is kid stuff, but the pattern is the same in the grownup world where real damage can be done. To this day, the one thing that sets my teeth on edge more than almost anything is being accused falsely of something I never did.

    I can just imagine how Rachel Alexander and Russel Pearce must feel. I have met both of them several times and know people who know them well. People do not come with higher levels of integrity than these folks. The “hand prints on the wall”, so to speak,without doubt, were all placed there by left hands.

  13. Then Russell Pearce should have had no problem disavowing the items the author states Mr Pearce had no knowledge of. The author implies the issues he lists were wrong and absolves Pearce of being behind them. Don’t know that I agree with him, but I can respect his opinion.

    That said, if these issues were wrong and reflected badly on Pearce and his campaign, it should stand to reason that Pearce would have much to gain by speaking out against these actions; moreso since he had no involvement in them.

    Anyone have a link to Pearce’s denouncement of these issues?

    • That’s a reasonable request.

      Now, the question: How should a politician respond if he or she hasn’t done anything wrong, yet is attacked for responding or not responding?

      This is germmane as Sarah Palin was accused of formenting violence against Gabriel Giffords within hours of the incidnt, and was criticized for not saying anything then criticized for asserting her innocence and discussing the greater importance of what was becoming not any true concern for ANY of the victims and their families,, but a manufactured opportunity for political attack.

      Her political opponents did not accept silence, did not accept statements, in fact nothing Palin did was good enough, even though she had nothing to do with it, was thousands of miles away, and had nothing to do with it in any way shape or form, had nothing to do with ANY of it, in any way shape or form… nothing to do with it in ANY manner …

      So… in that sort of political environment, what is Pearce supposed to say? He can’t say ANYTHING that won’t be ripped to shreds and thrown back in his face by his political opponents, so seriously, what’s the correct course to take?

      • He should have said that he had absolutely nothing to do with Cortes, and anyone within his campaign or a declared supporter of his had nothing to do with her and that he, as a true American patriot, disagrees with shady tactics like those. Let the the candidate win by their merits, not by inserting a sham candidate meant solely to draw votes away from another.

        The ripping to shreds, Wanumba, would have come from within his supporters and party. It’s not in their DNA to acknowledge something wrong within their own ranks. Likewise, he dealt his own fate when it comes to anything or anyone Latino. He’s bashes them; same old Pearce. He apologizes; open borders.

        I don’t, for one second, believe Pearce was entirely in the dark about Cortes. Maybe he didn’t know all the little details, but I am certain he knew the basics. He didn’t get to where he was by being naive. Say what you will about him, he was a shrewd politician. That being said, I do believe that had it not been for foolish paid circulators who openly stated getting Cortes on the ballot was solely to serve Pearce, his nieces gathering Cortes signatures and the astounding foolishness of Lester Pearce and Greg Western, Cortes may well have worked.

        At the end of the day, Pearce brought on his own downfall. And he’d dug himself so deep there was no way out.

        • Pearce was taken out by the recall rules so that three independent voting parties of the general election could be combined into one block just enough to knock him out ONLY if not enough of his base showed up.That was the gamble, and it succeeded. Pearce did not get the message to his supporters that they HAD to go back and do AGAIN what they’d just done.

          It’s not correct to say Pearce was taken out by any majority of anything when he was defeated by a recall-rearranged block made up of 1/3 Dems, 1/3 Indys and 1/3 RINOs,
          who 1) respersented the minority of each of those blocks, and 2) who normally would not even speak to eat other, much less vote together, except when it meant wreckiing the comfortable majority vote Pearce enjoyed in the general election.

          He ws taken out by a political coup, not by any majority.

          • Coup….such hyperbole.

            Why are you against the rule of law? The recall law is the same as it ever was, I don’t recall (ha), anyone trying to change the law over the years.

            Its not a grand conspiracy, its the law and Pearce got his ass handed to him, not a coup, just voters who were sick and tired of a corrupt old man.

            • Pearce was taken out by recall. Not by general election. With the numbers as they were, it’s plain it had to be a OPEN PRIMARY gimmick to allow for a COALITION Of three minorities to overthrow a MAJORITY.

              SO, this is a classic PROOF for why OPEN PRIMARIES SERVE DEMOCRATS AT THE EXPENSE OF REPUBLICANS.

              OH, one notices that the Dems are all pushing for a change in state laws to allow open primaries!! Small world!! WHat possible advantage would that be for Democrats, especially in districts with large Republican blocks?

              • Ah, when you have no argument, you scream in CAPPS!

                The recall is legal, its the law, are you only for the rule of law when you agree with it? Pearce could have won easily, but no….he had to have lock throwers, sham candidates, his brother threatening people, signs being stolen, his nieces collecting signatures for Olivia, had to threaten his bootlicker Broomhead at KFYI.

                You couldn’t run a more pathetic campaign if you tried to lose.

                Why are you afraid? Is it because lots of people are leaving the Democrat and Republican parties and becoming independent because they are embarrassed by their parties? If you put up a good candidate, they will do well, its self correcting.

                Now, go take some blood pressure medicine, you are getting all angered up over something that is a few months old. Remember, Anger, denial, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Work it out, stop killing yourself with stupid anger.

                Or don’t, its your life, reading your posts are pretty damned funny, not for you, but for others. :)

              • Conservative American says:

                So are you a man stuck in a woman’s body, like Horst Krause, or are you a woman stuck in a man’s body, Lampoon? We can’t be empathetic if we don’t know your situation, now can we.

          • Christopher Jacoby says:

            Wanumba- I think you just hit the nail on the head. Not enough of Pearce’s base turned out. I think this is symptomatic of his eroding base. The turnout at his pre-recall “rally” was also very low. What happened to his base? Why were they not there for him?

            • Pearce should ask them. They turned out just fine without being cajoled on the normal schedule, so to the off-schedule they didn’t react, some weren’t paying attention, some thought it wouldn’t matter … doubtful that it was one uniform reason, but the recall was absolutely banking on the combinations that would in the aggregate result in a lower turnout overall. By the actual votes, Pearce didn’t even need very much more than who did turn out to have kept his seat.

              So, the GOP should go directly to the voters and find out the truth. One cannot solve a problem if it wasn’t identified correctly in the first place.

              All I did was look at the orginal numbers and compare them to the general election. It was pretty easy. I am not on the ground nor do I know ANY of the people involved on either side of the issue, so that’s a job for Shane types who that sort of thing for a living.

            • Your point of Pearce’s base not turning out is an excellent one, Wanumba.

              But, as Christopher Jacoby points out….why?

              No way was it because of not knowing or paying attention. I can’t recall any other local election in my last 30 years that received this much attention. Even if one ignored internet, television and radio, you still had signs plastered all over Mesa….and outlying areas, for that matter.

              It’s possible that some may have thought it didn’t matter; that he’d breeze right through it. This I can see. But that many, and as the issues kept piling up? At the same time, people like me who have no political background, could clearly see the issues mounting. Up until October I gave Lewis no chance and figured Pearce would breeze. Then came along Olivia Cortes, Lester Pearce and Greg Western…among others. And it snowballed from there. Right up to election day with the foolish robocalls.

              I’m inclined to believe that some of those who may have previously been Pearce supporters cast their vote by sitting it out. I’m also inclined to believe that had Pearce made some sort of statement – a sincere one – distancing himself from the shenanigans that he wouldn’t have had to add Former to his title.

              • I’d ask, instead of assuming anything.
                A lot of people aren’t watching the news because it’s too vapid and they screen out robo-calls, and they toss anything that looks like political flyers as junk mail.

                So, the usual contact points may have totally failed…known factors an off-schedule recall absolutely banks on. The GOP should get out there and ask … and not by lazy methods either.

              • Wanumba…this was the most publicized race in the state, anyone that lived in LD18 had an opinion. Or are they just vapid because they didn’t vote your way?

                People were energized to vote Pearce out! Lewis was vastly outspent, but the anti Pearce people were motivated, energized and worked hard to throw out a bad man, you should be cheering the fact that democracy and grass roots actions happened.

                Its the American way.

              • Conservative American says:

                Well which is it, Lampoon? Man stuck in a woman’s body or woman stuck in a man’s body for you? You need to help us to understand your predicament.

  14. I did make TWO points:

    1) it was NOT any sort of “Republican surge” but a minority coalition of THREE blocks: DEMS/INDY/RINOs which voted against Pearce.

    2) Only 1/2 of Pearce’s general election winning base returned.

Speak Your Mind

*