A number of readers have … lamented … the lack of a discussion thread on the previous two RECALL topics, so it was fortuitous that a new wrinkle has made this topic timely and worth re-opening. Below is a summary of the previous RECALL Mathematics commentary, updated and with a link to a more critical inspection that perpetual mystery candidate Ron Paul fully deserves as Open Primary state Iowa is in the news, and how these seemingly disparate subjects of RECALL-MISCHIEF VOTERS-OPEN PRIMARIES seem to have so many things in common, including a whiff of the curiously Left-appealing political resemblances shared between Jerry Lewis (R) and Ron Paul (R), and a sobering warning to freedom-lovers from that great man Vaclav Havel. There should be plenty to discuss!
The raw numbers of the 2010 GENERAL ELECTION as compared to the 2011 RECALL:
2011 November RECALL 2010 November GENERAL ELECTION
Lewis: 10,816 = 53.4% Democrat: 10,663 = 34%
Pearce: 9,188 = 45.4 % Pearce: 17,552 = 57%
Cortez: 252 = 1.2% L: 2,808 = 9%
TOTAL: 20,256 votes cast TOTAL: 31,023 votes cast
Difference between 2010 and 2011:
Total RECALL votes cast show an overall decline in voter participation of 10,767, which took more than a 1/3 chunk out of the general election turnout numbers of 2010. Of that, 77.7% of that 35% decrease in total votes was suffered by Pearce; so Pearce’s 2010 general election base turnout was essentially cut in half in the RECALL. They didn’t shift their votes to Lewis, they just didn’t show up.
Referring back to the official tallies in the table above, only in 2010 did (L) differentiate: 2,808 votes for a third candidate. In 2011, there was no third candidate: the DEMS and INDs who voted, voted for Lewis (R) against Pearce (R), informally certifying Lewis as a decidedly Liberal Left-appealing candidate.
Polling charts provided by recall supporters indicate that a number of those (L) voters who voted against Pearce in 2010 came back and voted against Pearce by voting for Lewis, yet the combined Democrat and (L) votes of the 2011 RECALL as votes opposing Pearce were still less than the Democrat votes alone in 2010 opposing Pearce. In the RECALL, Democrat plus (L) turnout combined opposing Pearce were thousands of votes less than in 2010, but not as devastatingly poor for the RECALLers as the no-shows on Pearce’s side in 2011.
Looking back at the charts above, the combined opposition against Pearce in November 2011 was 10,663 (D) + 2,808 (L) = 13,471 to Pearce’s 17,552. Pearce’s Mesa united support easily surpassed his entire opposition combined in 2010.
In the RECALL 2011, the total opposition votes of three groups united against Pearce was less than the numbers of two opposition groups in the 2010 results. The recall supporters are claiming a wide surge of voter discontent with Pearce, but the raw numbers don’t support that claim.
The numbers show the Pearce defeat was a result of two factors: a typical recall dynamic: voter no-show, combined with the ability to shift the opposition DEM and IND votes to Lewis (R) in order to oppose Pearce (R). The RECALL was not a primary of any sort, so Democrats and Independents were free to vote for either candidate, informally certifying Lewis (R) as the most appealing to the Left side of the political spectrum.
The votes do not support any contention that there was widespread Republican disenchantment with Pearce, but the RECALLers with great glee highlight the existence of a small minority of self-identified disgruntled Republicans, perhaps henceforth, the Ephialtes Cabal from Mesa, who were willing to act on allying with two other normally politically hostile minorities, to deliver defeat at the great expense and detriment of the large Republican majority in that particular district.
The RECALL task was to convert an extreme losing position into a winning position. If the voters couldn’t be changed, then the playing field needed adjustment, and two shallow bench teams had to be re-combined against one deep bench team, which needed to be cut down to a more defeatable size, through massive attrition and some key defections.
The RECALL displayed what possibilities there are to exploit in an OPEN PRIMARY.
The RECALL votes don’t support any broad mandate of “anger” against Pearce, as claimed. The RECALL numbers actually reconfirm the results of the 2010 general election, but the tactic of recall removed the usual rules and election schedule to fully exploit the off-cycle dynamics. The 2010 general election was a more fair result of the consensus of a majority of voters in that district with much wider participation, while the 2011 RECALL was representative of a minority of three minorities, a fundamentally unrepresentative election. The voters of that district are now represented by someone the overwhelming majority didn’t vote for, and twice, at that. The disenfranchisement of the majority of the 2010 general election voters has been accomplished, in twelve months flat.
The mathematics of a political coup.
Interestingly, what appear to be quite similar dynamics are appearing in Iowa, an open primary state where what Byron York describes as “MISCHIEF VOTERS” seem to be forming voting coalitions of DEMS/INDY/RINOs to push the Jerry Lewis-like Ron Paul to the forefront. Byron York has looked into more detailed analysis which indicates that Ron Paul’s base is not monolithic Republicans at all, but a coalition of Democrat/Independent voters who go on to vote Democrat in the general elections, aided in the primaries by none other than self-described disgruntled Republicans … that Ephialtes Cabal again … part of the MISCHIEF VOTERS who are combining to jack Ron Paul over the heads of the other candidates who have more consistent and broad Republican bases.
Not coincidentally it seems is the increasingly noisy campaign to eliminate closed primaries and replace them with open primaries which enable coalitions of minorities to overwhelm solid Republican voter blocks, something that plays into the hands of the Democrats at the expense of Republicans.
The past week on Instapundit, a poster mentioned a Vaclav Havel quote he’d read at the blog smalldeadanimals. The writer explained Havel was referring to Communist regimes, but alarmingly, these things are becoming familiar to us:
The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. I t falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.
This bears repeating, alas: The Republican Party needs to be pro-active, forward-thinking and innovative to address this new political battle – plugging leaking holes is not the solution to the problem of a ship under a broadside attack. Republicans should note that Ephialtes, the traitor who sold out the valiant Spartans at Thermopylae, means “nightmare” in the Greek.
***************
2011 November recall: http://www.azcentral.com/elections/index.php?pgDate=20111108
2010 November RECALL : http://www.azcentral.com/elections/index.php
‘Mischief Voters push Paul in front of GOP’
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/mischief-voters-push-paul-front-gop-race/276751
***************
Insulting and derogatory comments will get the boot. It is more than just a little possible to make one’s point without insulting other posters, so let it be done.
Wow, do you get to write AND police comments? Thought SW was the moderator here.
You say: “The Republican Party needs to be pro-active, forward-thinking and innovative…”
I say the Republican Party needs to do some house cleaning and pay better attention to the history and character of some of the candidates they give us to vote for. Office seekers who don’t involve themselves in shady campaining, who are honest, who do the will of the people and resist the urge to take “bribes” or other gifts once elected are the type we, the people, are looking for.
Less than stellar candidates put forth by some districts are what, as you say: “plays into the hands of the Democrats”. Decent, law-abiding Republicans will likely defeat most Dems every time.
Beverly wrote: “Wow, do you get to write AND police comments? Thought SW was the moderator here.”
Gee, Bev, is anything right in your life?
BTW, it isn’t “policing”, it’s “moderating”.
Have a nice day, Bev.
Dear Beverly, the deal with Shane is anyone who writes an article for SA has to handle the comments on it. So, yep. I am supposed to “police” my “zone.” Don’t listen to those silly OWS children who drop and writhe on the ground frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of the word, police. Relax, say something that people would like to discuss with you relating to the subjects I helpfully put out for everyone.
Funny how a freedom lover only bans speech he doesn’t agree with.
Shame on you Wanumba, you raise hypocrisy to a new level.
So, Lampoon, are you a man in a woman’s body, like Horst Krause, or a woman in a man’s body. Just want to know what flavor of empathy you need.
Amazing how you lack any substance whatsoever whenever you post. And, you ask other posters questions, yet never have the guts to answer any questions.
Must be hard living down to the worst stereotypes that people (rightly) have about your complete lack of substance, intellect, and civility.
But, somehow, you continue to lower the bar.
So, which is it, Lampoon? I’m betting that you’re a man stuck in a woman’s body, like Hosrt Krause. Did I get it right?
Oh, pre-judging are you?
You got all these great subjects to talk about and you’re whinging about being instructed only to be polite when making your point. I guess you don’t go to restaurants that require jacket and ties. You should, it expands your horizons and versatility.
Just noting that you only censor things you disagree with.
Pretty lame, but expected from you.
Jackets and ties? Yeah, been there, done that, all over the world, Of course, that has nothing to do with any subject, just another unfocused diversion from you..
I haven’t censored anything. Wrongfully accused. So your crying about literally nothing is silly, silly silly.
You haven’t talked about anything about the issue at hand yet, just whinged about something that hasn’t happened, that isn’t blocking you from making a erudite comment. Even though you are being tediously off-topic, well no-topic, I have no problem leaving that sort of thing up because it makes you look ridiculous.
So, how do you vote? (D) or (I) or (R)? You advocating for open primaries?
You asked me a question. And, unlike you, who never seem to answer any questions, I’ll answer.
I vote predominately Republican, from time to time I will vote for an Independent and sometimes for a Democrat.
Yes, I advocate open primaries.
Are you ever going to answer the questions I asked you a few weeks ago? I won’t hold my breath.
And you are so hip using the “whinged” spelling, I’m impressed…
Okay, okay. I’ll use “whine” instead. Happy?
Use whatever you want, you ever going to answer any questions asked of you?
A man stuck in a woman’s body. A woman stuck in a man’s body. Which is it for you, Lampoon?
Wanumba,
You make a lot of assumptions, e.g., “Pearce’s voters didn’t turn out this time,” that are just assumptions without any data whatsoever. There is no basis for your assumption that Pearce’s voters didn’t turn out, while those voting against him did. I analyze and model data for a living, my friend, and your methods don’t hold up well.
Here are some numbers for you: In 2010, the Republican vote was 49.7% of the vote, and Democrats were 27.2% of the votes cast. In the recall election, Republicans were 49.4% of the vote, while Democrats formed 27.9%. There was almost no material change whatsoever. Overall turnout was lower, but the proportions by party remained the same.
Also, your 2011 recall voting numbers are significantly wrong. When the officially certified numbers are available from the Secretary of State’s office, you should use them. There were 23,296 ballots cast, not 20,256 as your table shows. You will invite more credibility by using correct numbers. http://www.azsos.gov/election/2011/Recall/Canvass2011Recall.pdf
Both preliminary polls (from the Capitol Times, and internal polling by the Lewis campaign) and the actual results support that Lewis won a very high percentage, if not a majority, of Republican votes. You completely discount the fact that sentiment had changed against Pearce within the party, and that many of his past votes were from Republicans who favored Pearce over a Democrat, but not a fellow Republican they viewed as more in tune with them.
Further material: The Colorado Model
http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/12/28/the-colorado-model-the-lefts-stratagem-for-turning-red-states-to-blue/
One criticism I have of the Colorado Model article is that it compares the entirety of the Republican Party with a monolithic clump of jihadist on the left. Both Republican and Democrat parties share a mutual weakness: diversity. For bloggers and journalists who think that the Republican Party can wage gorilla warfare as effectively as KGB special forces, that’s an unreasonable expectation. Fortunately, the article’s author acknowledges that a few rich left-wingers provide financial backing while select radicals and an assorted pool of talent execute Saul Alinsky’s dark ideas. But, there is no need for the Republican Party to mimic the devil here. If Republican leadership wants to do make an impact, it can get out of the way and let its base—which out-thinks plus out-numbers paid left-wing radicals by the millions—do the work that needs to be done.
The tea party generated momentum that scared the pants off liberals. We were marching on State capitals without being paid. We were getting out the vote on sheer patriotism. We were regularly shutting down the Capital switchboard. No one had to write a check to boost voter registrations. Hippy billionaires on the left don’t have enough money between them to reproduce the tea party effect. Liberals were so shaken their congressmen were cursing in public, DOJ & ACLU lawsuits went into overdrive, and Van what’s-his-name was reassigned to help the unions regroup.
Under the surface, this isn’t a donkey-elephant war. Yes, know thy enemy, but the worse thing real conservatives could do would be to punt the ball to GOP leadership demanding they imitate the left. If the best defense is still a smoking offense, the game plan for Republican leadership should be to buy muzzles for the Karl Roves and the Megan McCains in the fold and grease the skids for the tea party individuals who are willing to do the work to save this country instead of marginalizing them.
I’m not sure mimic is the correct course, but first identifyand inform people as to what’s happening and then an appropriate response can be fashioned.
I meant to convey that I agree with what you said in forming strategies, that mimicking s not necessarily what to do, though tempting. Certain tactics, yes, others, no thanks.
Yes, I think it would be great if the Republican Party were better at communicating what’s happening, that would be immensely helpful. I trust its not cynicism, but pragmatism to suggest that since leaders can’t communicate what they don’t know or understand themselves, it’s better not to depend on them to do so. Instead, I only hope they have wisdom enough to give the people who do know what’s going on a clear path to get things done and not be obstructionists.
Very much so. Yes.
The GOP has absolutely failed to communicate, the message ground is totally controlled by the Democrats. The GOP absolutely has to find the ways to get the message out, and the usual outlets are NOT going to help in any way shape or form.
Reliance on email, junk mail and blogs is lazy folly.
It’s jawdropping that the Democrats which were the slavery and anti-civil rights party that harbored the KKK could flip that odious past onto Republicans, the anti-slavery party, civil rights party. It’s jaw-dropping that Republicans ALLOWED that lying abuse to go unchallenged so that now it’s the established “narrative.”
I mean I started as a Democrat until I found out the real history.
Right on target. If we Republicans don’t get it right this time, the party is going to hemorrhage membership big time!
“What do you mean we Republicans?”
“No, what do YOU mean by WE Republicans”.
(Apologies to Four Leaf Tayback and Alpa Chino)
One thing the R’s used to have on the D’s was unity.
The Tea Party has closed that chapter.
So long as neither will compromise with the other, “we Republicans” will never get it right.
The rabble that is the Tea Party, combined with completely unscrupulous folks in the AZ state congress (Birther Bill?) and scoundrels like Pearce, and our GED Governor made me drop the R tag and become an independent. I’m not alone. They left me by going insane, proud to not be in the party any more.
YOu sound just like King George complaining about the colonists. SO you place yourself on the side of tyranny over freedom?
I’m for freedom, until you got shamed into allowing comments you weren’t for freedom were you?
Hypocrisy…you are soaking in it!
Um, how have I been shamed into allowing abusive commenting? Why would ANYONE allow that? Wouldn’t it be shameful to allow abuse when one had the means to stop it?
Do you even know what “hypocrisy” means? You use it for everything.
The New Valley Girls:
“Like you know, that skirt’s so hypocrite.”
“Yeah, red and brown is so hypocrite, what were they thinking? So hypocrite!”
“Like you know. You hypocrite!”
“”You calling me a hypocrite?”
“”Like if the shoes fits, hypocrite!”
“Those shoes with that dress are so hypocritical, like you know, you hypocrite!.”
“I may be a stealin’ liar, but don’t you call me no hypocrite, you hypocrite!”
I bet you’d rather talk about elections now, instead, yeah?
Lampoon says:
December 28, 2011 at 9:19 pm
The rabble that is the Tea Party, combined with completely unscrupulous folks in the AZ state congress, and scoundrels like Pearce,
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
“Your Highness! The colonial terrorist rabble have dumped your Majesty’s tea in Boston Harbor and are refusing to pay the increased taxes to the Crown! The scoundrel Patrick Henry has incited them to voicing open disrespect of Your Majesty’s authority!”
Wow! Uncanny!
Yep I call them rabble.
But you compare the legal recall election to what the terrorists did on 9/11. How messed up was that?
Now God gave you a male or a female body but you think He made a mistake. What are you on the “inside” as opposed to the outside?
It looks like the Ephialtes Republicans are doing the “dis-unity” thang, not the “Tea Partiers.” It was the Ephialtes (Rs) who undercut the majority Republicans by a political sell-out, unholy alliance with the political opposition.
There is something called “Jacksonian American ” … folks who do not look kindly to people who break deals, alliances, party loyalties.
Thank you Wanumba for an excellent clear concise breakdown of what the Parazz/Snow professional leftists are up to here.
Read the Drudge link on the Colorado Model. The Weekly Standard link there dated a report by Fred Barnes from ’08. A must read. You can fill in the blanks here when it comes to the progressive think tanks now comming on board after Pearce now pushing the Open Primary issue.
First we had the IRC and the second incarnation via a court strategy featuring a faux Tucson Independent working the bottom up/inside out – hijacking the process. When folks like Charlton start thumping their chest about ‘protecting’ the constitution people need to pay attention – to his motives; what did this partisan know and when did he know it when it came to prepping a AZ Supreme Court presentation?
Now the Morrison Inst and Grand Canyon folks are pushing open primaries – claiming that Pearce represents some sort of ‘sea change’ – and they get front page coverage at the compliant news rag and eventually the ‘echo chamber’ runs monthly on TV coverage.
At the start of the Recall effort all you heard about was ‘grassroots’ this and ‘citizens’ that…now we have seen Parazz and Snow showing their true professional leftist selves targeting Sheriff Joe and Jan. It was all about Pearce only as long as it suited their purpose.
One difference between our being under assault from the professional left and what Colorado dealt with beginning in ’04. They didn’t have to deal with Holder’s Justice Dept. and Tom Perez Civil Rights crew focusing oppertunistic politics exclusively on MCSD.
Another difference from Colorado?
Reports on blogs like this. Repubs were caught cold and flat footed. Again, great job. After Pearce people are waking up – because we are well armed with important info to fight the good fight.
Thanks. I’m sure many people have recognized these things, but people really need to be reminded how these things are related, what they share in common … not just willy-nilly random. ,, so the response must also be comprehensive and coordinated, not a panic reaction.
Phoenix48 says:
December 28, 2011 at 6:51 pm
“One difference between our being under assault from the professional left and what Colorado dealt with beginning in ’04. They didn’t have to deal with Holder’s Justice Dept. and Tom Perez Civil Rights crew focusing oppertunistic politics exclusively on MCSD.”
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Yes. This is absolutely a big and oppressive escalation in external pressure, mobilizing the federal government to harass and influence state politics to promote a partisan political attack. Not good. Not at all, especially given the stakes of the FAST and FURIOUS, which distributed lethal weapons through the existing illegal networks, starting in Phoenix.
Since I pay the bills here on Sonoran Alliance, I decide who gets moderated and who doesn’t.
I wouldn’t come on your property and start spewing obscenities or demonstrate disrespect without the expectation of getting drop-kicked off your property so please mind your manners or I will ban your IP addresses as I did two other commenters.
I’ve been extremely lenient allowing all points of views be expressed here so don’t take advantage of my leniency.
‘Nuff said.
Wanumba, you wrote, “They didn’t shift their votes to Lewis, they just didn’t show up.” The factors in turnout for a particular or special election are complex. Your conclusion as I have quoted is not supported by the evidence you cite. Perhaps there was a poll that asked Pearce voters who participated in both election what there choice was, that would address the point you have attempted but failed to prove. Don’t fall into the causation/correlation trap. You just don’t have the data.
Well, they didn’t show up. That’s plain by the numbers.
What we don’t know for sure is WHY nearly 50% didn’t go back a second time. They would need to be asked, because my assumption is there was more than one reason … and Pearce actually didn’t need many more votes than he had on round two to have held his seat, he had a lot more reserve to draw on than the RECALL side did.
The stated reason was “voters were fed up with Pearce.” Well, some were, but they voted in a minority percentage onthe RECALL side and Pearce had many many more people who voted for him, despite two other choices in the general election. SO, the statement is without any verification of actual voter reasons.
That statement has not been questioned the way my suggestions have been, and it should have been questioned. They have no more basis for it, except a big need for political propaganda…rather biased.
You said: “say something that people would like to discuss with you relating to the subjects I helpfully put out for everyone.”
OK, so Pearce lost. When someone loses, it’s usually because the voters are AGAINST a candidate and they don’t vote for him. Or they turn out to vote for his opponent.
Or, the voters are ARROGANT and think that their guy is so unbeatable that he’ll win in a landslide and they don’t turn out: “don’t need to; he’s a lock, always has been.”
Or, they just APATHETIC and don’t care anymore. After the nasty campaigning and the Olivia Cortes sham deal, it should have been clear to Pearce and his people that the support just wasn’t there this time around. When you rent a venue that seats 13,000 people and only a few hundred show up, that’s a sign.
Can you accept that Pearce lost because the voters are tired of him, or do you claim some big conspiracy or fraud stole it from him? I thought a recall election was legal in this state. No?
Yes, Beverly, recalls are a legitimate and legal process here in AZ.
A process that’s so easy to go through that in the last 100 years there’s been….hold on, let me add them up again….ok, got it…1 recall election.
But, that’s not for lack of effort. Seems a certain group instituted recall efforts against Phil Gordon, Clarence Dupnik and Rich Crandall (and others) but ran into that pesky petition thing.
I’m not recalling which group it was that was behind these guys recall efforts, but I’m pretty sure someone here will remember.
I’ll go so far as to agree with Wanumba that there is more than one reason as to why Pearce had his clock cleaned by Mr Lewis. The biggest of which was the Former Senator himself. They try to mitigate the reasons down to inconsequential, minor issues like…supporting Scott Bundgaard, the Fiesta Bowl (try as they may, Pearce was, far and away the largest recipient of FB favors), a joke of a “Jobs Bill”, Birther legislation, etc., There’s really no need to go into the campaign itself, where, again, Mr Pearce was his own worst enemy.
The problem for the far right is that Pearce was forefront in pushing their shared ideology. They don’t want to accept that a majority of the people in the state don’t share that vision and/or the means and methods they’ve chosen to attain it. They’re not willing to compromise to at least achieve part of what they seek and work with others; it’s their way or the highway. To that extent, for them, it’s not about the issues/ideology because that’s sound stuff in their minds. So, logical thinking, in their minds, concludes that Pearce wasn’t voted out because that was the will of the voters, rather, it has to be a grand conspiracy in which all the stars aligned allowing a political nobody to defeat Former Senator Pearce in a landslide.
Pearce was, excepting Joe Arpaio, the most popular and well known politician in the State. Nobody, even one living under a rock, was not aware of the recall and it’s implications. Nobody. That the Pearce loyal who’ve voted him back into office election after election did not turn out to keep in him in office should speak volumes. And, they did not, to a large degree “not show up” because they didn’t know about the election or assumed a Pearce victory. Some maybe, but even my 7 year old daughter picked up on the troubles he was having while watching the evening news.
I don’t see any change in their thinking as we see the same people responsible for Pearce’s “well oiled” recall campaign are still leading the GOP charge. So long as they wish to live in a world filled with conspiracy fantasies, and looking for every excuse to blame his loss on – besides the real issues – they are in for a rude awakening this coming November.
The problem with all that is the reality of the general election. If all you said was true, then Pearce would have lost in the general election…only 12 months before. It would have manifested itself in the primary, in the general.
The General Election is the standard, the measure. The RECALL was designed expressly to undo those results, disenfranchising the majority will of that district.
The RECALL folks do have a vested political interest in none of this being examined very closely. Randy Parraz is on record as calling for collection of recall petition signatures against Governor Brewer … and he’ll noted he’ll show everyone how to do it, helpfully. Brewer was recently elected overwhelmingly by voters who knew exactly what they had with her and were satisfied, why the “need” for a recall against her?
It’s not from Republicans that the FIRST call for a RECALL petition drive against her is coming, but DEMOCRATS.
Wanumba, you still don’t get it. In the months between the primary and the recall elections, an avalanche of negative publicity about Pearce hit the streets. Rob has done a good job of spelling out what has come to the public’s attention.
It wasn’t pretty, the voters woke up and LD18 has a new senator. Hope the same thing happens with the voters in LD4; not by recall, but by the process. Plenty of bad press about that senator, too.
Ding, ding, ding!
You’re absolutely correct, Beverly. Wanumba seems to have lost memory of the time between Pearce being elected last November, through the last legislative session and through most of the recall election.
Prior to becoming Senate President he was really only well known to Tea Partiers and the far left, mostly. But when the session kicked off with a bang last year introducing an official state gun in the immediate aftermath of the Tucson shootings, the Pearce snowball started rolling and it got big. Really big. Humungous. Selectively banning those he didn’t like from Capitol grounds is when I recall things really starting to take off. No matter who you are, that won’t sit well with anyone.
What I’m really lost on is why his supporters and the GOP are NOT looking at his loss (beyond the grand conspiracy and evil Randy Parraz theories) and making adjustments to avoid the future disasters. Heck, even keep in the conspiracy stuff but take an honest look at the whole situation. Failing to do so, continuing to believe that everyone agrees with them and dividing the Party even further will not result in positive outcomes for the Republican party.
The group behind the Crandall recall was the same group behind Olivia Cortes’ sham candidacy – that would be the East Valley Tea Party and the “not-credible” Greg Western. Funny that Pearce fully supported those recalls, but thought his own recall was so ill-begotten.
Among these folks, hypocrisy is the most abundant element in the universe…
Well is it hypocrisy to be in a woman’s body and feel that you are a man or to be in a man’s body and feel that you are a woman? Isn’t that a hypocritical misrepresentation?
Beverly says:
December 29, 2011 at 6:09 am
OK, so Pearce lost. When someone loses, it’s usually because the voters are AGAINST a candidate and they don’t vote for him. Or they turn out to vote for his opponent
::::::::::::::::::::::::
That’s a fair statement. It could be true. Scientifically, does the data support it?
IN this particular case, no. Go right back up to the 2010vs2011 tables I helpfully reprinted for everyone to make it easy to refer to.
In direct reply to the scenario you posed, I did examine this and discussed it, so in sum:
The numbers show a significant decline in numbers of voters who voted against Pearce in the RECALL, lower than the number of voters who voted against him in the General Election, and so low that the DEM/INDY/RINO composite all together voting against Pearce was significantly less than the DEM/INDY vote combined in the General Election.
Had Peace mobilized even a few more of his normal base, even the turncoat traitor Ephialtes Repubs alliance with the DEMS and INDYs wouldn’t have been enough, the opposition numbers were so low.
There’s no data basis for a surge of outraged (R) voters turning on Pearce. The traitor Ephialtes (R)s were only 1/3 of the total RECALL opposition, 2/3 were DEMs and INDYs. THat does NOT qualify as any even close to majority Republican rejection, especially when 2/3 of the opposition were.. his usual opposition. So, what was really going on?
RECALL off elections do count on that “apathy” factor, which does have real world consequences, so it is true that Pearce is to blame for not getting the message that this RECALL was serious business. But as it was just pointed out, RECALLs aren’t something this state is all that familiar with, as historically seen as an extreme measure required for extreme redress, which is so rare, recall hasn’t been attempted much, so “complacency” could have been the fatal flaw, too. This RECALL was completely political in nature, a very bad precedent.
I’d ASK the voters who voted in 2010 and didn’t in 2011. THEN we’ll KNOW, and plan accordingly, because the RECALLERs have already announced their that they will assist anyone desiring, on how to go after Governor Brewer.
OH, you’re one of those who RECALLed against Pearce …. how awkward …ahem.
Well, what are your plans for Brewer? Are you a DEM or INDY or (R)?
I had nothing to do with the Pearce recall except to watch it with amusement. What did he expect?
You ask: “Are you a DEM or INDY or (R)?” I’ve been asking you to guess.
BTW, I love Governor Brewer.
Oh, my mistake, I recalled (as in the memory type) that you said you were part of the RECALL efforts, an early supporter, that is, and you defended Lewis. Are you clarifying that were an outside district observer like me, and were just voicing support for that RECALL in principle?
And why should I guess at what you are? Aren’t you proud of your political choice? I’m not asking that you paint it on a banner and glue it to your house, it’s in context of this discussion only.
I’ve never been involved in the recall; don’t know Lewis, never defended him. Pearce brought on the recall himself by his actions.
I only asked you to guess my party since you seem determined to label everyone who posts here.
I am always proud of my “political choices” since I do a lot of research before I vote and will only vote for candidates of noble character, a history of good citizenship and work ethic. I do not rely on campaign ads, opponents’ dirt or district PC’s recommendations.
So go ahead and label me if you like…
Where would we be without labels, Bev? You wouldn’t get your mail. There wouldn’t be any handicapped parking spaces. You wouldn’t know which public restroom to use.
In your case, Bev, you are a left wing liberal posing as a Conservative. It’s very helpful and useful to label you what you are so that people don’t think that there’s some sort of split among conservatives, although that’s what you would like people to think.
I was deeply involved in the primary against Gov. Brewer. She was in deep trouble until she got credit for 1070. It was going to be a law whether she signed the bill or not and up til that time she was very soft on the illegal immigration issue.
After polling and playing up the decision to sign or not, she signed with much fanfare. Gretta Van Sustern of fox news made her an international celebrity after signing.
Senator Pearce is responsible for insuring that Brewer won her election and to her credit, she has done a better job backing the conservative ideology. She still has her weaknesses, but 1070 has made her a stronger Governor.
So Beverly, if you like Brewer, and not Pearce, it may be that you cannot state your political affiliation because you really don’t have and ideology.
That is not meant in a negative way. Some people “Just vote for the person”.
Until you can show that Pearce voters did NOT vote for Lewis then the rest of your rhetoric is empty. Again, you have turned some interesting phrases but you lack evidence and proof.
Nationwide NDAA 2012 Congressional Protest
http://www.facebook.com/#!/events/335643799778967/
Thank you Banthe Scan. Spreading the word on this. We’ve done it once in Tucson, we can do it again!
PROTEST OF JOHN MCCAIN’S NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1680646552506.49674.1727838384&type=1&l=be1233924f
Another good job by you Wanumba. Your breakdowns prove to all but the “Diehards Forever” that the lack of his base is what caused Senator Pearce’s loss. You did not have to use silly little pie charts or extrapolations to prove your point. Still, of course, we really don’t know why they weren’t there. Perhaps we will find out next year where the base is, my guess is that it is still where it was when Pearce got elected last year.
The dialog has been better under the threat of monitoring, much better.
Now I would hope that the infighters will open their eyes and realize that we must fight the real enemy that is the current power base in the Obama Adminstration, not fellow Republicans and conservatives. Much of the assault on voting integrity thoughout this country is based within the White House.
Thanks. I think though that the GOP needs to find out very very quick, as in yesterday, exactly why 1/2 the base didn’t get to the polls.
Fighting the last war is also a mistake. Maybe it’d look suspicious to recall both Arpaio and Brewer, that inconvenient factory-line effect, so ooff! Suddenly a smear campaign erupts to make Arpaio look bad… degrade his stock so to speak, hiding behind of all agencies, the very tainted Justice Department for amoral cover.? So, the tactics shift.
It’s useless for the GOP to be running around stomping on little lit fires instead of stepping back and formulating a multi-level strategy.
Every time the subversives try a new wrinkle in beating the system [voting] they learn something. If it works, they keep doing it. If it fails, they tinker with it and try again. See Acorn. I talked to one of my District reps shortly after last years elections and warned [implored] him to try to get a systemic review of all aspects of the voting laws and regulations for ways to improve security and process. I urged legislation to really stiffen all voting related penalties……Nothing yet, sad to say.
As for the argument that the recall was “legal,” let’s just consider that the 9/11 highjackings were also ALL perfectly legal through the normal functioning systems, tickets were bought, IDs were presented, stood in line all neat and tidy, sat in the assigned seats … except that the intent and design of the system was to deliver passengers safely to other airports, not seized and redirected into buildings to kill as many people as possible.
Except, of course, a recall is designed to remove a politican from office, and the Arizona Constitution requires/offers no standard required.
And comparing the recall to 9/11?
Gonna make that famous.
Wow.
Just wow.
That’s the best analogy you could come up with, Wanumba?
It’s damn sobering, isn’t it? Legal systems twisted against the people. Obviously, not many people have considered the mechanisms used that day, but everyone should.
It should be shocking, because that’s exactly how 9/11 was achieved, there was no straight up army in numbers that could defeat or even make any sort of normal warfare against the USA, so a minority found a means to employ legal, very benign and very good systems to wreck havoc, mass murder and ruin.
9/11 is an extreme example of the torquing of perfectly legal operations, services, laws, rules, regulations to distruction.
The hijackers all properly bought tickets, and sat where they were supposed to, and weren’t overweight on the luggage, and the box-cutters at that time were allowable, right?
So, the point is : the argument that we should ignore what happened because everything was “legal” doesn’t always excuse misuse of the circumstances.
I think it was a very bad idea for the SAT to have removed the analogy section, because I haven’t yet seen a coherent grasp of correct use of analogies or recognizing the essence of what makes an analogy.
“So, the point is : the argument that we should ignore what happened because everything was “legal” doesn’t always excuse misuse of the circumstances.”
Except there was no misuse of the recall statutes. The recall statutes were used exactly as designed, and the state constitution lists no standard for recall. A recall can be attempted any time, for any reason – from gross negligence and failure to represent the district to simple mercurial whim. That’s what you continue to fail to grasp. Perhaps the quinine is impacting your thought processes?
“I haven’t yet seen a coherent grasp of correct use of analogies or recognizing the essence of what makes an analogy.”
Well, considering that you compared to 9/11 to the Pearce recall, you’re “example A” of that.
Wanumba, please tell me that someone is using your pseudonym again and that you really didn’t just compare 9/11 to the recall.
Actually no. The comment was addressed specifically to the argument that people had no grounds to object because everything was done “legal.”
I used an example of how “legal” doesn’t always work out well at all. Obviously, not many people have thought of the example I used, but it’s true that 99% of it was accomplished by the use of legal systems and mechanisms.
I assumed everyone here has the intellectual capacity to grasp that, even after explaining it twice.
Posters who have previously self-identified as being very hostile and insulting to my commentary, no matter what I say, wouldn’t be just huffing and puffing an outrage would they be to twist around what was said?
So now if we take exception to your example of a recall being as legal as a terrorist attack, we’re all of low intellectual capacity?
That’s why you need to be careful what you say, ‘numba cause some of us dimwits will probably quote you and you’ll have a lot of explaining to do.
You must be either a politician or a lawyer, talking in a manner the common folk just don’t get.
Beverly says:
December 29, 2011 at 4:13 pm
So now if we take exception to your example of a recall being as legal as a terrorist attack, we’re all of low intellectual capacity
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
You will be considered of low intellectual capacity if you insist on that twisting. People will also not trust your opinion henceforth when they discover you distorted the point. So, you CAN go that way… but it will ultimately reflect badly on YOU.
You compare the recall to 9/11 bombings?
Go see a doctor, you have malaria.
Wow, your hyperbolic spew just gets more stupid.
So are you a man in a woman’s body or a woman in a man’s body, Lampoon?
Wanumba, I don’t agree with you much, but I’ve always thought you were at least an intelligent person. This single comment completely changed that opinion. Simply idiotic.
As a lawyer, you know damn well what the point was, and furthermore as a lawyer involved with representing illegals you operate as a lawyer with that knowledge constantly in mind, is that not right?
The standards for recall must be tightened. Now that the subversives have been successfull with Pearce it will become S.O.P. with them.
Wanumba, They just sit back and snipe don’t they? No substance.
So, you’re A-OK with comparing the Pearce recall to the murder of 3,000 Americans? Do you also find some sort of comparable thread between the two?
1 in the last 100 years.
Yeah, that’s abuse.
So, when 1 person is shot and killed…….
What are you talking about?
If you would have read what I said instead of hurrying to get off another shot you would have understood.
Recalls will become S.O.P. with you after succeeding with Pearce. “Standard Operating Procedure”!!
I really hate to respond to you again, but if it will help make you look like the snarky lightweight that you seem to be I guess I will.
Did they become S.O.P. after conservatives used it to recall Gray Davis in California? Or are recalls more of a one off thing?
Well, gee Flaps, nice of you to step down to my level.
You know, I’ve always considered you an intellectual heavyweight.
Can you point out the recalls that are lining up now that they’re SOP?
And, where did they ever get the idea from?
Certainly not from the guy that showed up on O’Reilly’s show one night speaking for those pushing a recall of Clarence Dupnik, right?
I hope that question meets your high standards.
Well gee, Robs, don’t you have any kisses for me today? You aren’t cheating on me with another guy, are you?
Beverly says:
December 29, 2011 at 10:59 am
I’ve never been involved in the recall; don’t know Lewis, never defended him. Pearce brought on the recall himself by his actions.
I only asked you to guess my party since you seem determined to label everyone who posts here.
I am always proud of my “political choices” since I do a lot of research before I vote and will only vote for candidates of noble character, a history of good citizenship and work ethic. I do not rely on campaign ads, opponents’ dirt or district PC’s recommendations.
So go ahead and label me if you like…
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Beverly. Beverly.
YOU demanded of ME the other day to define political positions, and you demanded for ME to tell YOU what I THOUGHT you were. I told you THEN that I found it useless to GUESS at what your political positions are, and that YOU felt if it was so important, YOU should TELL US what you maintain as YOUR political ground , so we don’t make MISTAKES or ASSUME anything about you. We would get it from the source, YOU … 100% correct. You would not then be offended if we guessed wrongly.
I don’t know why you have shrugged that off that very reasonable attitude and are now insisting I want to label people.
I have indeed asked on this thread expressly to watch how people react…a surprising number don’t want to say anything, and one wonders why not. I don’t care WHO you are, where you live… I mean that in the nicest possible way, I’m sure you are very nice and live in a nice place … but we’re here to discuss ideas and principles, not each other.
In this particular discussion, what is known as “disclosure” is actually relevent, given the DEM/INDY/REPUB alliance, but not at all required. We can muddle through. The positions people take do tell enough, without needed to state anything.
This is simply an on-running reference to what YOU initiated.
Given you are here on a “political blog covering political news and events, commentary and information with a blatantly conservative worldview,” then you have a VERY good idea on which side of the political divide MY political views sit, without me having to spell it out, I would think, anyway.
I’ve demanded nothing of you, Mr. Wanumba. You do label people based on how they post and you labeled me so I challenged you to reveal the basis of your opinion.
But the bigger news here is that you have chosen to have your legacy be: comparing the recall of an arrogant state senator with the murder of 3000 people on 9/11, calling them both “legal”.
And now it looks like you’d like to change the subject…
I don’t believe wanumba was comparing the OUTCOME of the two, just the fact that sewer rats (ala Parraz and Snow) took advantage of a set of circumstances to hijack a situation that was crippling their agenda ( and in the case of verminous Parraz and Snow – their incomes). I might not of thought of that comparison – but if the shoe fits. It certainly also fits the current M.O. of walking, breathing offal working to remove Joe Arpaio. Lot’s of profits for American-brand pigs, a re-election of a slumgullion President, and the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court ruling are riding on this one. Don’t tell anybody, but it’s a dog-eat-dog world.
Thank you zoo. I was not comparing the OUTCOME. But, they know that.
So calling me a “sewer rat” and “verminous” passes your “insulting and derogatory comments” test, wanumba? I guess your “policing” only cuts one way, just like your hero Arpaio.
Well, that’s a good point. I was off line sleeping so I didn’t see it. Should I give zoo a warning just like I gave you down there?
Hey, Snow, aside from MARY ROSE WILCOX, you have another staunch ally in your fight against Arpaio; RAUL GRIJALVA.
“Democratic U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva and two Democratic state legislators have called for Arpaio’s resignation.”
Now I see the kind of “Conservative” Republican Party you want to come into existence. One which supports MARY ROSE WILCOX and RAUL GRIJALVA, LOL!
Okay. What did I decide on for a label for you? A quote, please, so I can see what I decided to label you.
I see you like the idea of running with the nincompoop position … rather the idea of twisting what I said. How should I label you given what you are conveying dishonestly about me while you avoid discussing the issues of this rather broad topic range?
How seriously do I take your assertation that you “love Governor Brewer” when I see you being so defensive and angry about this recall issue? You vocally supported a recall against Pearce, and the same group announced they would advise how to get rid of Brewer thru recall?
WHat do you think of the RECALL crowd now, since they’ve articulated their plans for Brewer?
Huh? You think I am “defensive and angry about the recall”? Obviouosly it was effective against Pearce and I’m happy it happened.
Will it happen against Brewer? Time will tell; has it been initiated? I’m betting if it does, Brewer will have, unlike Pearce, many more supporters who would show up to vote for her. She’s not nearly as abrasive as Pearce and she actually works with both sides on most issues.
In case you’re still confused about my party affiliation, I am a registered Republican.
Well, you sure are harsh on Republicans, as so many seem to fall sort of your standards, without any corresponding criticism of Democrats, so it sorta seems as if you’d be more comfortable with Democrats, who share most of your complaints against Republicans, and you were okay with abandoning party loyalty to enable the opposition to unseat a Republican.
Just sayin’. It doesn’t really add up. Have you thought of switching parties? The cognitive dissonance must be tough to manage.
You, Wanumba and your condescending attitute toward all who don’t agree with you are a big problem in the Republican Party.
I repeat, I had nothing to do with enabling “the opposition to unseat a Republican.” I did concur that the recall process was necessary in this situation and apparantly so did the majority of voters in Pearce’s district.
Your suggestion that I switch parties shows your inclusiveness, which is why so many are abandoning the party…and you might want to rethink your tactics if you want to retain faithful Republicans like me. And no, I am not a RINO, either.
You, Beverly, and your condescending attitutde toward all who don’t argree with you are nothing but a big tactic of liberal, progressive Democrats feigning to be Republicans.
I repeat, you are a flaming, left wing, progressive, liberal Democrat in Republican clothing.
ROFL! “…faithful Republicans like me…” Yeah, you’re a faithful “Republican”, just like Nancy Pelosie and Dianne Feinstein.
Oh, there it is, “inclusiveness”! Tell us, Beverly, do you support homosexual “marriage”? Is that part of your idea of “inclusiveness”?
Wanumba shouldn’t rethink his tactics. They are working just fine to expose you for the progressive Democrat that you are.
Its always funny when Wanumba gets flustered over something stupid he said (which is often), he resorts to typing in all capps as if that makes him look less silly.
And, the inevitable divert, this time to Brewer, last time comparing the election to the 9/11 terrorists, comparing himself to Jesus, etc.
Its pretty hilarious, but his fevered writing does make a point…usually the complete opposite..
I don’t have italics. If you could show me how to put in italics, or bold on these comments, you’d see a lot fewer caps. I literally don’t know how to convey emphasis apart from caps, which is admittedly unfit for what I want to convey.
So, you’d rather whinge about that than compose anything erudite about MISCHIEF VOTERS-RECALL-OPEN PRIMARIES?
Lampoon says:
December 29, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Its always funny when Wanumba … comparing himself to Jesus
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I did? When?
I just pointed it out, that you rush to evoke Jesus every time you try to slam down the big judgment, “HYPOCRITE!!”
I mean, you need his authority to make your condemnation stick, right? But, the rest of the time, you have nothing to do with him…. which would be … called.. there’s a word for it…
You used Jesus as a cheap prop to compare to your posting, as usual with your comparisons, it was poorly worded and off base to the subject, so excuse us if we didn’t understand your usual convoluted intent.
You know, like comparing the murder of 3000 people by terrorists to a fully legal recall election.
I like it, keep it up because people will sit up and say, “WHAT? WHAT??!” and then it’ll have to be explained, and they’ll say, “Oh,. I never really looked at it that way.”
I mean, by it’s nature, it naturally demands an explanation, doesn’t it?
No, it just makes you look nuts.
Better to look “nuts” rather than to actually be “nuts” like a Lampoon, LOL!
Sgt. Flapjaw says:
December 29, 2011 at 11:26 am
The standards for recall must be tightened. Now that the subversives have been successfull with Pearce it will become S.O.P. with them.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
The problem is that takes time, and we are facing the big election next November. As you noted, the legislature can make a sloth look like Bolt, and when they do rush things thru, it’s usually not done right. So, the strategy requires short term, medium term, long term components.
It can be done, the problem is recognzing that t has to be done. The Tea Party “gets” it better than the regulars.
Wanumba,
You make a lot of assumptions, e.g., “Pearce’s voters didn’t turn out this time,” that are just assumptions without any data whatsoever. There is no basis for your assumption that Pearce’s voters didn’t turn out, while those voting against him did. I analyze and model data for a living, my friend, and your methods don’t hold up well.
Here are some numbers for you: In 2010, the Republican vote was 49.7% of the vote, and Democrats were 27.2% of the votes cast. In the recall election, Republicans were 49.4% of the vote, while Democrats formed 27.9%. There was almost no material change whatsoever. Overall turnout was lower, but the proportions by party remained the same.
Also, your 2011 recall voting numbers are significantly wrong. When the officially certified numbers are available from the Secretary of State’s office, you should use them. There were 23,296 ballots cast, not 20,256 as your table shows. You will invite more credibility by using correct numbers. http://www.azsos.gov/election/2011/Recall/Canvass2011Recall.pdf
Both preliminary polls (from the Capitol Times, and internal polling by the Lewis campaign) and the actual results support that Lewis won a very high percentage, if not a majority, of Republican votes. You completely discount the fact that sentiment had changed against Pearce within the party, and that many of his past votes were from Republicans who favored Pearce over a Democrat, but not a fellow Republican they viewed as more in tune with them.
HI Tyler.
Stop with the percentages. The numbers are up top.
Did you know it was your insistence to present everything in percentages that got me suspicious in the first place and made me want to look at the real numbers?
Wanumba, Wanumba. You got the wrong numba. I even gave you a link, clearly showing that your numbers are wrong. It links right to the certified vote tally from the Secretary of State. And you still keep at it. I don’t understand.
Also, those percentages are correct. You are right that the total votes from 2010 to 2011 were different. But why don’t you address my point, which is that turnout percentages by party were the same–which refutes your point that “Pearce’s voters stayed home, while the others showed up against him.” You have nothing to back that up. Nothing.
Tyler Montague says:
December 29, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Wanumba, Wanumba. You got the wrong numba. I even gave you a link, clearly showing that your numbers are wrong. It links right to the certified vote tally from the Secretary of State. And you still keep at it. I don’t understand.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Tyler, do I need to put an arrow and point a couple of positions down in the reply queue that I immediately ran the numbers you wanted.. notice it’s comfortably HOURS time-dated before you put your current sniffy and inaccurate claim in: Let’s just LOOK:
–>>>
wanumba says:
December 29, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Going by the numbers you referenced, the RECALL was a full 1/4 drop in overall turnout
and they still don’t support your claim of any sort of “Republican primary.” It was an Open Primary type DEM/INDY/SELL-OUT coalition that couldn’t gather as many votes against as the entire DEM/INDY opposition of the general election 2010.
—>>
……………………………..
So, you had over three hours to notice I replied to you and used your preferred numbers and you didn’t even check before you rushed to judgment?
Well well, Bank of America is here. How’s those illegal alien bank accounts and credit cards working out for you Ty? How about that Randy Parraz Mastercard? That outta drag in some pesos.
I’m commenting on my own behalf, and do not represent my employer, and do not set policy for my employer. Give it up, zoo.
Going by the numbers you referenced, the RECALL was a full 1/4 drop in overall turnout from the general election, most of which was out of Pearce’s base, and the DEM/INDY/RINO combo was still less than DEM/IND combined in the general election, still a minority of DEMs who voted against Pearce, came back to vote against him the secind time, a minority of turncoat collaborator REPubs voting against Pearce out of a majority who did vote for Pearce and looks like INDYs were the most consistent return block coming back to vote against Pearce again.
The observations are still valid. It was a minority alliance of thee minorities out of three separate parties, not some sort of “Republican primary” as you asserted.
Of course it’s pretty appalling that the overall registered voter participation was only 33.7 % for that district, so everything about this remains a minority of a minority result at the expense of the majority, but that’s a different topic.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Sgt. Flapjaw says:
December 29, 2011 at 11:26 am
Wanumba, They just sit back and snipe don’t they? No substance.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So, I turned off the comments a couple of times for a break from the whines and they cried like babies and look at the drivel.
I mean, I even invoked Vaclav Havel ,and it’s ignore one of the greatest minds for freedom in the Twentieth Century who actually lived under the tyranny of brute communism, actually was imprisoned and censored, for whinge-whinge about narcissist self-centered fake martyr complexes .. but of course that’s part of the sort of thing Havel warned about didn’t he, so maybe some people don’t want anyone to read it more carefully?
“for whinge-whinge about narcissist self-centered fake martyr complexes .. ”
There is just zero self-awareness on your part, isn’t there?
Now you use the corpse of Havel as another prop to deflect from your silly statements.
Havel was a great man, I spent many days in Prague in the early 90′s. Of course, Havel has nothing to do with the Pearce election, none at all.
I hear Havel has a sister who had a cousin who married her brother who had a father in law who knew of a niece who in turn had heard her 2nd half-brother on her father’s side knew someone that was related to Randy Parraz (but it might be Chad Snow).
Close enough?
I hadn’t heard that one Rob, but I did hear that Russell Pearce had two nieces and a brother who collected signatures for Olivia Cortes…..
Wanumbskull, Tyler has tried to point it out to you twice. I’ll type in your preferred method, ALL CAPS, to make the point. YOUR NUMBERS ARE WRONG. Lewis got 12,812 votes, not 10,816. Pearce got 10,121 votes, not 9,188. There were 23,298 total votes cast, not 20,256.
Next time, get your facts straight first, then distort them as you please.
Hullo Chad,
DId you read my second reply where I used those exact numbers Tyler linked to?
You did not? Well, here’s the summary, which you can read for yourself up there if you weren’t so darned rushed to judgment.:
The results are the same: In a overall lower turnout (3/4 of the 2010 turnout) – A minority coalition of DEMS/INDYS/Traitor Repubs voted against Pearce which came in lower than the DEMS/INDYS combined who voted against Pearce in the general election 2010. No “surge of Republican anger” against Pearce… just like I said, the RECALL mimicked an open primary effect of combining three disparate groups, normally very hostile groups against one monolithic group.
I haven’t distorted anything. Did you read the quote from Vaclav Havel?
So, Chad, as a self-professed Republican involved in the RECALL, doesn’t that make you one of the Ephialtes Republicans? A “Nightmare” Pubbie?
No, it makes me, just like Tyler and several thousand other Republicans who worked on the recall or the Lewis campaign or who voted for Lewis, Republicans who are sick of the lunatic fringe of the GOP hijacking the party to further their own narrow social agenda. I want smaller government, less taxes, and a strong national DEFENSE. I want a state government that gets out of the way and attracts businesses, instead of passing ineffective, costly state laws that are unconstitutional. The homophobic, xenophobic, anti-intellectual brand of Republicanism that has surged in the last few years just isn’t for me.
Well, Snow, it’s nice to know that you stand hand in hand with that paragon of virtue, MARY ROSE WILCOX, in your support for Sheriff Arpaio. So MARY ROSE WILCOX must be the kind of person you praise and admire in government. I think we understand where you are coming from, Snow, LOL!
CA, “in your support for Sheriff Arpaio”???? I don’t support Sheriff Arpaio. Next time, think before typing. BTW, “LOL” is for teenage girls.
Oh sure, you must support Arpaio. With allies like MARY ROSE WILCOX and RAUL GRIJALVA, you must want Arpaio to win, LOL!
Hey, Snow, have you chased your first ambulance of 2012 yet? Collected any fees from undocumented workers who were injured on the job? Nice guy!
Oh, hey, and it’s nice to know that RAUL GRIJALVA backs you on this Arpaio thing. You know, the same RAUL GRIJALVA who called for a boycott of his own state over SB1070.
Some real, genuine “Conservatives” you align yourself with, Snow. No doubt you would like to see the Republican Party follow their ideology, LOL!
“Wanumbskull’? LOL, you’re the ambulance chaser, Snow! Obviously at the pinnacle of the legal profession, ROFL!
http://www.azsos.gov/election/2011/Recall/Canvass2011Recall.pdf
Aw come on, Chad, tell us how you catch those ambulances. Do you wear special shoes when you’re chasing them? How much do your clients get to keep in you win?
See “anti-intellectual” brand of Republicanism (above). CA is exhibit A in what’s wrong with the “conservative” movement today. Can’t string together a coherent sentence. Can’t make an intellectual argument, much less an original one (ambulance chaser, really?). Probably thinks Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are great thinkers. Doesn’t have the balls to post under a real name. Pathetic.
Yeah, that’s is Chad, Come on, tell us all about what’s WRONG with the Conservative movemnet today, That is what you do best, after chasing ambulances, that is.
Now tell us Chad, how it was “Republicans”, and not Mormons, who elected Jerry Lewis and tell us how the election was about “the economy” and education rather than illegal immigration and illegal immigrants. Gotta spin that election, Chad.
So please, Mr. Democrat, tell us more about what’s WRONG with the Conservative movement today, just like a true Conservative, LOL!
By the way, Snow, tell us about your working relationship with MARY ROSE WILCOX. The two of you are one regarding Arpaio, even had your picture taken together at a meeting. Very nice!
So MARY ROSE WILCOX represents the sort of person that you support in government. It is now clear what you want the Republican Party to be.
Just like Russell Pearce had his picture taken with J.T. Ready.
We don’t have to “spin” anything about the election. We won.
Oh, but we’re not talking about Russell Pearce and J. T. Ready. We’re talking about Chad Snow and MARY ROSE WILCOX, everyone’s favorite Maricopa County Supervisor and your ally against Arpaio.
Well, here. You can see a nice photo of yourself:
http://www.aurorasentinel.com/image_61091074-7cc1-11e0-aa31-001cc4c002e0.html
There you are, Snowman. See yourself? MARY ROSE WILCOX is rght there with you, just on the other side of Randy Parraz.
BTW, Snowman, that bald spot on the back of you head appears to be increasing in size in some of your more recent photos. Try thinking Conservative thoughts for a change. That should put some hair on you.
So RAUL GRIJALVA supports your position on Arpaio, Snow. You know, the same “progressive” Democrat U. S. Congressman who called for a boycott of his own state over SB1070.
Wow, you have both MARY ROSE WILCOX and RAUL GRIJALVA on your side. It’s quite clear how you would like to see the Republican Party change, LOL!
Chad Snow says:
December 29, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Wanumbskull,
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hello Chad,
DId you not read the first comment about insulting people?
You are a self-professed lawyer. If you spoke like that in the courtroom in front of a judge, what would the judge do to you?
Hello Wanumba,
Did you not read the first comment about insulting people?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Conservative American says:
December 28, 2011 at 7:07 pm
So, Lampoon, are you a man in a woman’s body, like Horst Krause, or a woman in a man’s body. Just want to know what flavor of empathy you need.
That’s not insulting. That is a simple, straightforward question. Which is it, Lampoon? You know you can’t have very high self-esteem if you are trying to hide who you are.
As I told you before, take your repressed bi-curious fantasies somewhere else.
It’s really very simple, Lampoon. Either you’re a man in a woman’s body or you’re a woman in a man’s body. Nothing really complicated here. Which is it, Lampoon?
C’mon Lampoon, he’s just a good “conservative” American like Larry Craig. Wide stance, CA?
Gee, Chad, you’re the expert on wide stances. Taken any illegal immigration cases lately or is the Obama administration forcing you to do nothing but personal injury cases these days?
It is funny to watch his GED mind try to argue, but failing that, he just rants and raves and makes silly attacks. But, he is the backbone of the Pearce Tea Party types..LOL
It would be nice if he had an original thought, but that would require some IQ and wit.
BTW, love the link to the vote total, you think by now these folk would get it?
So, Wanumba, are you policing this thread, or just being a hypocrite?
Well isn’t it being a hypocrite to present in a woman’s body when on the inside you feel that you are a man?
I couldn’t access SA most of the day yesterday until just now.
And the way you are rude to me, I at this point I find it astounding you totally expect I should be perfectly sympathetic to your complaints. How about displaying some yourself before whining about others? You are only getting back what you yourself put out, even less.
You were invited to comment, bring some aspects you believe, why you think people made decisions, motivations – adult reasoning not insults – on the issues and all you’ve done is complain about me.
I look at this entire comment thread and can’t believe what a waste of time it was. It wasn’t debate, it was babysitting..
I am not calling you names, I’m refuting your points and pointing out hypocrisy. But, its OK for your poo flinging friend to say whatever he wants?
You are the one that said he would “police” the thread, but, as usual, you just show hypocrisy.
FWIW, leave CA’s posts up, he is too dim to understand why everyone here ignores his brainless postings.
The only reason you allowed comments is because you were shamed into it. Tyler wrote a great article on this subject, and you wrote a poor one. I’m glad you allowed comments, for whatever reason.
Isn’t it hypocrisy of the worst kind to present as a man when you’re really a “man stuck in a woman’s body”, Lampoon? You’re not even presenting to readers as what you are.
CA is an idiot in a human body.
…and Chad Snow supposedly made it through law school… only to chase amblulances, LOL! That’s one way of burning off some fat!
Hey, Snow, tell us about your working relationship with MARY ROSE WILCOX. The two of you are together on this Arpaio thing. Even had your picture taken sitting next to each other. Nice!
So should we replace Arpaio with someone more like, let’s say, MARY ROSE WILCOX? Is that you vision for a “better Arizona”?
These are the same people who think Arpaio is good at “policing” too. Piss poor crime fighting numbers (read the Mission Unaccomplished report by Goldwater Institute) but he arrests a few of the “wrong” kind of people (Mexicans) so all is good. Where do you stand on Arpaio, Wanumba?
And while Chad Snow sat comfortably in his ambulance chaser law office, hoping to garner some illegal alien cases, Joe Arpaio was enforcing the law. Which could the world get along without better, Chad Snow or Joe Arpaio?
Hey, Chad, why don’t you become a Sheriff’s deputy. You know, get out from behind your desk for some purpose other than chasing ambulances, LOL!
Well how are things going with you and MARY ROSE WILCOX on this Arpaio thing, Snow. Saw the photo of you and MARY ROSE WILCOX sitting next to each other at an anti-Arpaio meeting.
So MARY ROSE WILCOX is the kind of politician you consider to be on YOUR side of things. Guess that’s all we really need to know about you, LOL!
Oh gee, you also have RAUL GRIJALVA on your side! You remember RAUL GRIJALVA, don’t you, Snow? He’s the “progressive” Democrat U. S. Congressman who called for a boycott of Arizona over SB1070. Nice! Call for a boycott of your own state, LOL!
Ah yes, CHAD SNOW, MARY ROSE WILCOX and RAUL GRIJALVA together will save us from Sheriff Arpaio. On second thought, I don’t think that I want to be “saved” from Arpaio by SNOW, WILCOX and GRIJALVA, LOL! The three of you are just a bit short on Conservative credentials!
You’re starting to creep me out, CA. Obsess much?
What’s that? You want to see MARY ROSE WILCOX become the Governor of Arizona? Well, we know that you are working with MARY ROSE WILCOX against Sheriff Arpaio. Has the woman really made that much of an impression on you?
I’m not a “self-professed” lawyer. I’m actually licensed by the State Bar. That’s right, numba, I went to an accredited college (not a weekend course like Pearce), went to graduate school, passed the Bar exam. I guess to you, an educated person like me is just an “elitist”.
Yeah, well, even the State Bar makes mistakes, Snow.
Oh, here comes the “real” Chad Snow, LOL! The education elitist. So you got passing grades, took the Bar exam 12 times, managed to pass and now you’re chasing ambulances. You’ve reached the absolute pinnacle of the law profession, Snow, and that’s right where you’re going to stay, LOL!
No, CA, I got into a Tier One Law School on a full ride scholarship. Passed the Bar on the first try. Have a very successful firm. I have a smokin hot wife and make lots of money. You’re obviously a sloppy, angry, uneducated, bitter, white man. Ha ha ha ha ha. I win.
Gee, I’m impressed, Snowman.
Snowman wrote: “I have a smokin hot wife and make lots of money.”
Well now, that’s what is REALLY important in life, isn’t it, Snowman. Well, it’s important for guys when they are, oh say, 17. Most mature out of that. You may some day as well, although at your age, it’s not looking good.
So now that you have MARY ROSE WILCOX and RAUL GRIJALVA on your side against Arpaio, Snow, do you think that you three paragons of Conservatism can save us from the Sheriff? Hey, maybe you can persuade Rany Parraz to run for Sheriff! ‘Ya think? Wouldn’t that make for a “better” Arizona, LOL!
Chad Snow says:
December 31, 2011 at 2:02 pm
I’m not a “self-professed” lawyer. I’m actually licensed by the State Bar
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
You may note that the only way I got that information about you is off the comments section here on SA, and I have no means to verify it, so I was being “conservative” in making such assumptions. So, I take your word for it, which is fine. All I want to be is correct about this, it was just heresay. Now I am comfortable that it’ from you, presuming it is you, and not a faker,(no gravatar thingy … sorry … but I feel comfortable it’s the usual you) that you are a licensed by the State Bar lawyer.
WHy do you run further with it to put divisive and negative connotations in order to infer to everyone that I am lesser in intellect than you? Is that how you normally deal with people who have a different opinion than you? Label them as “lower” than you? Is that fair?
If you want to complain about CA, it’ between you two. I happen to be a completely different person, and have what is normally a standard expectation to be dealt with on my own merits and actions, not on someone else’s.
CA has no need for that edujamacation thingy, his GED served him just fine.
He has nothing of intellect to add, so he just flings poo like a monkey. Sad, but he lives down to the worst stereotypes people have of conservatives. That he is not embarrassed by his posts says a lot.
Well which is it, honey? Are you a man trapped in a woman’s body or a woman trapped in a man’s body? I mean we know that some suffer these sorts of tragic anomalies. Have you sought professional help yet, dear?
“CA has no need for that edujamacation thingy, his GED served him just fine.”
Now, now Lampoon…I know people with GED’s and I don’t think it’s fair to insult them by elevating ConAm to that level.
Likewise, I don’t think ConAm would like being known as an “educational elitist”.
Though with his latest string of posts, he’s doing his best to refute it.
Well gee, Robs. The day after Christmas you wrote this to me:
“Why bother with silly, wimpy football guys when I have you to fantasize about?”
“muah…xoxoxoxo”
What, not lusting after me any more, sweetie? No more “xo” kisses for me, Macho Man?
Rob, true, I hear you can become the governor of AZ with a GED.
The only time you would see CA around an institute of higher learning is if he were sweeping the floors there. I wonder if CA isn’t really a “Poe”, a plant to make conservatives look bad.
Personally, I think he makes carbon life forms look bad. He really has shown just how creepy and stalking he is. Could you imagine what his significant other would say if they read the bile he spills?
Now all we have to do is to gain an insight into what you actually are, Miss Lampoon. I mean are you the same on the outside as you are on the inside or is there a dichotomy, Miss Lampoon? If we look at you and see the body of a woman, is there a man inside there?
Chad Snow says:
December 29, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Wanumbskull, Tyler has tried to point it out to you twice. I’ll type in your preferred method, ALL CAPS, to make the point. YOUR NUMBERS ARE WRONG. Lewis got 12,812 votes, not 10,816. Pearce got 10,121 votes, not 9,188. There were 23,298 total votes cast, not 20,256.
Next time, get your facts straight first, then distort them as you please
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Discerning readers may note that unlike Monsieur Tyler, I provided the original numbers and the links to where I got them so that everything I wrote could be verified. Tyler provided a different final tally source, so I bravely went back and ran the numbers he wanted me to use, and found … well, the numbers still did not support Tyler’s statements that it was some sort of “Republican primary.”
I was forced to do all that because when I tried to figure out how Tyler got his numbers, he didn’t provide any of the original voting tallies off which he derived his percentages.
Now why would Tyler not provide the original numbers to readers if he had them in hand, and only preent what he wanted to convey in %tages?
Anyone read freedom-fighter Vaclav Havel’s hard-earned and brutal experience with the reality of the totalitarian communist regimes?
Meanwhile, based on Tyler’s objections to the numbers I used, I also get to write an irate note to the editor and publishers of the tables I referenced to inform them they were providing shoddy product to the innocent public. So much for their important job to “inform the public!”
How is it that you don’t understand that voters who do not show up to vote are NOT supporters? The 25% decrease in voter turnout was not due to Pearce supporters not showing up. The very fact that they did not show up means they were not supporters of anyone.
As for your numbers Tyler very clearly and correctly showed that the drop in turnout was equally distributed among all parties and the percentages were virtually equal among parties compared to 2010. Had there been a higher percentage of Dems voting I could see your point but clearly that was not the case.
Tyler did not provide the actual numbers, and every statistician know how the games are played with percentages. ONe can be “accurate” without conveying the reality of the circumstances, isn’t that correct?
Some supporters may have been out of town, elderly and needed a ride they didn’t get … sick… didn’t know … one can be a supporter and not show up. The RECALL absolutely banked on attrition, that’s why a RECALL instead of waiting for the general election.
Nothing Pearce did that couldn’t have waited for the general election … but a political decision was made by Democrats that they lose at the general… it was Democrats wasn’t it who started the petition and provided the majority of signatures, is that not correct? so what OTHER options would let their minority vote prevail?
Only in Wanumba’s mind is 55-43 a “minority” win……
Mine and Tyler’s numbers were both taken from the Sec’y of State’s final canvass. That’s the ultimate scoreboard wanumba, your guy lost. And the numbers, no matter how you cook them, show that he probably lost even among Republicans.
Only in Snow’s mind is Lewis a Republican win and not a victory for “progressive” Democrats and the “new” immigration policy of the LDS Church.
Hey, Snow, how’s your working relationship with MARY ROSE WILCOX coming along? The two of you were seen sitting next to each other at an anti-Arpaio meeting. Your kind of gal, eh? Would you like to see your ally, MARY ROSE WILCOX, as Governor of Arizona some day? Would you?
I see that you also have RAUL GRIJALVA on your side against Arpaio. Ain’t that something! CHAD SNOW, MARY ROSE WILCOX and “progressive” Democrat U. S. Congressman RAUL GRIJALVA are going to save us from Sheriff Arpaio, LOL!
Have you been in close contact with Congressman Grijalva about this Arpaio thing? I’m sure that RAUL GRIJALVA can come up with some great ideas to help you, Snow. After all, he did come up with the brilliant idea of calling for a boycott of his own state over SB1070!
Have a nice day, Snow!
You are creepy, CA. I’m starting to think you’re Carl Seel!!!
What’s that? You think that MARY ROSE WILCOX and RAUL GRIJALVA would make a good presidential ticket? Well, you know them a lot better than I do, working with them against Sheriff Arpaio and all.
CD6 Businessman says:
December 31, 2011 at 1:09 am
they did not show up means they were not supporters of anyone.
As for your numbers Tyler very clearly and correctly showed that the drop in turnout was equally distributed among all parties and the percentages were virtually equal among parties compared to 2010.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Tyler did not provide readers with ANY original numbers until I forced the issue and anyone can now run the raw vote tallies for themselves. It’s easy adding, subtracting and simple %.
Tyler deliberately used percentages.
And when one can claim a 100% rise in crime to describe a circumstance when robberies rose from 1 last year to 2 this year, then percentages can convey very inaccurate impressions, isn’t that true?
Tyer made some bold claims and used percentages to support his claims, but the original numbers don’t support his assertations as to any Republican surge or “primary” against Pearce. Pearce DID win a Republican primary AND the General Election. Everything asserted about the RECALL has to be measured against that REALITY.
Yep, there absolutely were self-described Republicans who voted against Pearce, not a Pearce sell-out, but an entire GOP sell-out, by a minority amongst Republicans. There are other ways to resolve this besides turncoating to another political party which had very carefully calculated how to profit poltically from all this at the expense of Republicans.
Beverly says:
December 28, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Wow, do you get to write AND police comments?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I also took the picture this past weekend, a photographer, too. He’s cute isn’t he?
Gotta watch out for monkeys though. They look cute and adorable, but they just sit there waiting for your back to be turned, then they steal off your plate and if you try to defend yourself and chase them off, they scream bloody murder and 50 of their monkey pack shows up and attacks you.
Monkeys have a bad reputation for a reason.
It woud take half a day to list all the labels you’ve put on posters here. Now we’re monkeys?
As a dedicated Republican, I resent the fact that you challenge my “party loyalty” when I disagree with some of the tactics SOME in the party use to stay in office.
When guys like Pearce, Bundgaard, and Brock smear the party’s reputation by their alleged (and substantiated) bad behavior and ethical violations, I think the party should remove them. But, no, they do everything they can to defend them (party loyalty, I guess) and these bad boys stay in office and hence, stay in the crosshairs of the media. Well, except for your king, Pearce.
The above mentioned have given the Republican party in Arizona a really black eye and those who defend them are just as bad.
So ‘numba, why don’t you just come back from Africa and start knocking on doors in LD18 and find out for yourself why those disloyal to the party didn’t turn out and vote for your friend Pearce?
Wow. You got a labeling fixation, Beverly.
Yeah, Bev, you’re a dedicated “Republican”, like Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein, LOL!
To be precise and technical about it, Bev, you are what is known as a “concern troll”. You are oh so concerned about the Republican Party. Your biggest concern it that it isn’t like the Democrat Party, LOL!
The next time you have lunch with Hillary Clinton, be sure to let her know about your attempts to “fix” the Republican Party and get rid of those pesky Conservatives. That should score big points!
Nice to meet you, CA. You conclusion that I am a liberal in your other post, is way off.
I am a life-long registered Republican who is a fiscal conservative, pro-gun, pro-life (without exception), anti-big government, anti-socialism, anti-Obama and everything he stands for.
I am a big fan of Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Governor Brewer.
Your comparison to Pelosi, Feinstein and Clinton is insulting. One day I may reveal my identity and you may be shocked.
Just because I’ve pointed out that some in our party are an embarrassment and should be replaced, you and Wanumba are convinced I’m somehow disloyal and should change parties. You’ve illustrated just what’s causing concern in the party. No opinion counts except yours.
It’s not nice to meet you, Beverly. My conclusion isn’t “way off”. It’s “right on”.
Honey, I don’t shock easily. I don’t care if you reveal yourself to be Superman. The sort of garbage you are slinging is characteristic of liberals who want to “redefine” the Republican Party just like they want to “redefine” marriage.
Beverly wrote: “No opinion counts except yours.”
That’s not true, Beverly. Jim DeMint’s opinion counts, for example. Your opinion doesn’t count because you’re a left wing liberal. How do you feel about that, Beverly?
You are hateful and your accusations border on libel. If you want to call me a liberal because I left out that I believe “marriage should be between one man and one woman”, which I do, that won’t work either. Any other conservative characteristics you think I lack?
What garbge am I slinging? Lying about other posters? If you think you are the ideal conservative, then I’m glad I don’t think and act like you.
This discussion was supposed to be about Pearce’s recall and all the other issues Wanumba included in his title. You always seem to turn it personal and attack other posters about “man in woman’s body”, “woman in a man’s body” etc.
I’m sure Dems look at you and use you as an example of mean spirited intolerance.
Ah yes, there it is, folks! The second part of the liberal, homosexual “marriage” mantra; hateful. Get it right, Beverly. It goes like this; “bigoted, hateful racist”. See, it’s easy. Now you try it.
Beverly wrote: “Any other conservative characteristics you think I lack?”
Wrong question, Beverly. The cogent question is what Conservative characteristics you have, LOL!
Beverly wrote: “If you think you are the ideal conservative, then I’m glad I don’t think and act like you.”
Oh, my goodness! Where have we heard this song before, LOL!
Your liberal act is so old that you need to get off the stage, honey. We’ve heard it all before. “True Conservative” used to post about how wanumba and I were giving Conservatism a bad name. Just a variation on the theme, LOL!
Beverly wrote: “This discussion was supposed to be about Pearce’s recall…”
Well what do you know! Great shades of the ghost of “True Conservative”! See, Beverly, TC had this “rule” that she made up to “help” Shane; “Stay on topic!” Of course Shane didn’t ask for any help and TC didn’t follow her own rule. But it’s the same ol liberal line.
Beverly wrote: “You always seem to turn it personal and attack…”
Oh, oh, oh! How classic liberal can we get? If you can’t take the heat, honey, get out of the kitchen.
Beverly wrote: “…attack other posters about “man in woman’s body”, “woman in a man’s body” etc.”
Oh, so that’s “an attack”? You have a problem with those questions, Beverly? What seems to be your problem?
Beverly wrote: “I’m sure Dems look at you and use you as an example of mean spirited intolerance.”
ROFL! No, Beverly, liberal you looks at me that way.
Hey, where’s your “tolerance”, Beverly. You’re telling us that you don’t support homosexual “marriage”. What about the “rights” and “equality” of homosexuals, Beverly? Are you intolerant of that? You aren’t one of those “bigots” who would deny homosexuals the “right” to “marry”, are you?
Beverly,
DO you realize you’ve said NOTHING nice about Republicans and Conservatives in all your posts? Nothing. SO, I personally cannot put together why you say you’re a Republican, yet you can’t say anything positive about Republicans. I as also a Republican Conservative find d it unpleasant and unfair.
I don’t know CA, never met, on two different continents, have probably rather different life experiences, so why do you lump us together as it we are twins or something?
You want to answer me, it’s to me. You want to answer CA, it’s CA.
Your own behavior is confusing to strangers. Maybe it’s just a function of short blog commenting, rather than anything else. I know I think I’ve conveyed a clear point and watched others fall to pieces becuae of it and realized it wasn’t what I had thought would be well understood.
MY overarching point from the get-go was that IF Republicans were not politically happy with Pearce, then out of party loyalty, they should have worked through the normal primary systems to replace him with a Republican candidate, NOT through any recall. THAT would have required convincing the majority of Republicans to your argument. THat’s harder work, but then everyone is ultimately on board. The recall did NOT allow that and it was initiated by DEMOCRATS, so they calculated no matter what, THEIR party would be the ultimate winners, even if it took a two stages and setting Republicans against each each other to get there. For a self-professed Republican to support a politically-motivated recall in rhetoric, support, or voting is a betrayal that weakens the GOP and strengthens the Democrats.
These are the issues to think about:
That the Democrats are trying to spin this as a “Republican Primary” shows how much they counted on what the communists called, “useful idiots.” That is the official nomenclature of what the communists/socialist think ultimately of people : “useful idiots” NOT Conservatives or Republicans who think of peopel as human beings with intrinsic value. How short-sighted is it to be swayed by a political side that ideologically reduces people to tools?
I don’t know you and I don’t know CA, but the only link I’ve made to the both of you is the inferrence (and on CA’s part, outright accusation) that I am a liberal.
Why can’t I be a Republican and still be critical of office holders in my party who are subject to unwise choices and unethical behavior? I think parties (both sides) should discipline their own.
I would have loved to see the Dems ask for resignations from Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Gerry Studds, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Anthony Weiner, the senator from Oregon and a boatload of others. So often incumbents can’t be voted out; so the party leadership ought to step up and take charge. Give the voters better choices. Guess I’m naive to think that might happen.
Does my admiration of Governor Brewer, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Nicki Haley and others not count as “saying anything positive about Republicans”? And I am a big supporter of many of our local Republican lawmakers and office holders. Voted for them every time.
I’ve concluded that if you don’t get on this blog and blast Dems to the satisfaction of all, you will immediately be called a liberal. That’s too bad; SW has often said all views are welcome as long as people’s
Sorry, I hit reply before finishing…SW has often said all views are welcome and asks us to be respectful of others opinions and have thoughtful discourse. This blog often disintegrates into name-calling and disrespect.
Get off you high horse, Beverly! Let’s review YOUR sweet comments, shall we?
“You are hateful and your accusations border on libel.” I’m “hateful”. Hey, that’s not “name-calling and disrespect” at all, is it, LOL!
“I’m sure Dems look at you and use you as an example of mean spirited intolerance.” Hey, nice one, Beverly! “Mean spirited intolerance”. That’s not the dreaded “name-calling and disrespect” at all, is it.
Get real, Beverly.
LOL! You’re not getting it, wanumba. Here’s the key statement by Miss Beverly:
“I am a life-long registered Republican who is a fiscal conservative…”
Only left wing liberals state that they are a “fiscal conservative”. You see, the left wingers have attempted to propagate the myth that there are fiscal Conservatives and social Conservatives. The idea is to split Conservatives and to have them drop social values and family values. U. S. Senator Jim DeMint, and others, have stated that Conservatives are both fiscally Conservative AND socially Conservative. There is no dichotomy among Conservatives. It is a fabrication of the liberal left and a tactic to attempt to split Conservatives.
So be aware of who it is that you are speaking to when you respond to Miss Beverly and adjust your expectations accordingly. Why do you think it is that she has a gripe or complaint about everything? She complains about you, she complains about me, she complains about you moderating the articles you post!
When you address Miss Beverly, you are addressing someone with an agenda. She’s not interested in “discussing” anything. She’s only interested in pushing the liberal leftist agenda and attacking Conservatism.
With someone like Miss Beverly, the best you are going to do is to reveal them for what they really are. Attempting anything else is simply spinning your wheels. It’s like helping the little old lady across the street… only she doesn’t want to go, LOL!
Beverly says:
January 1, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Sorry, I hit reply before finishing…SW has often said all views are welcome and asks us to be respectful of others opinions and have thoughtful discourse. This blog often disintegrates into name-calling and disrespect.
::::::::::::::::::
Er. Beverly. You are making more of this in your own head than what’s really here. Just who is going to throw you out of what? Have I not been the most abused poster on this blog? Have you not noticed the history of the usual suspects here calling me every name in the book? Then during the recall snarlfest my nic was maliciously highjacked by a disgruntled loser to literally, in every legal sense of the term, libel Shane on another blog? I mind my own business, and who respected that?
You should marvel at how polite I’ve been to you, but you are wailing.
I ask questions so that you defend your positions yet you’ve dissolved and complained like I was some sort of meanie.
I obviously detect a lack of conviction in what you say, so why is that? You have free choice to vote for a the local squirrel if you so chose, but don’t be surprised if people don’t think that was serious or considerate of our Constitutional responsibilities and duties as mature citizens.
I expect to see that your reasons as a self-described Republican to be materially different than the mantra-like robotic rhetoric straight from uber Liberal Randy Parazz, so what’s going on?
Contrary to the accusations, I did not have ANY problem with people who were not happy with Pearce. It was the mechanism and motives that disturb me. Yet, the snark is I’m some “Pearce-lover.” Unlike all you folks, I never heard of him until 15 months ago, I’m not in his district so all my comments have been about the RECALL itself as corrosive politics. This is classic Alinksy “personalizing” the issues and “attack the person.” It is bad enough coming from Liberals, it’s disgusting from self-professed Republicans.
You have NOT made a solid case for abandoning the normal primary and general election process in favor of a recall launched by Pearce’s opposing political party. You don’t recognize that I am viewing all this from a very different background than all of you and take offense when none was intended.
The issue goes far far far beyond Pearce the person, to the credibility of the electoral system. If you do not see that, then you do not understand the enormous ramifications of this corrosive political tactic or you are not what you claim to be.
So, make your case, but suck it up and take the debate that goes with it. This current pop culture of “non-conflict” makes wussies out of people. Don’t be like that.
.
IMHO, that’s the best, most clear and articulate post you have made to date, wanumba. Good on you, Old Chap!
I especially like the ending: “This current pop culture of “non-conflict” makes wussies out of people.”
There’s a term in psychology called “confluence”. It means agreeing to never disagree and that is considered to be dysfunctional. Conflict is an inherent part of life. The only issue is how we handle conflict.
Clearly, the thrust of the liberal left has been to attempt to intimidate people so that they don’t speak their mind or voice their convictions. Those who fall prey to this become the “Nowhere Man”.
“He’s a real nowhere man,
Sitting in his Nowhere Land,
Making all his nowhere plans
for nobody.”
“Doesn’t have a point of view,
Knows not where he’s going to,
Isn’t he a bit like you and me?”
“Nowhere Man please listen,
You don’t know what you’re missing,
Nowhere Man,the world is at your command!”
The man who has nothing for which he is willing to give his life has nothing for which to live. Our time here on earth should mean something. We were not created to be nebbishes.
Lampoon says:
December 30, 2011 at 5:53 am
Use whatever you want, you ever going to answer any questions asked of you?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I am very sorry, I can’t remember what was asked by you weeks ago. I feel bad that you’ve been waiting so long, waiting waiting waiting literally weeks for my opinion, and so patiently.
Don’t worry, the point was made, your hypocrisy was on full display..as always.
I’m sure that in the future, when I ask you tough questions, you will cut and run again.
How was the point made? You haven’t told me the questions you have been waiting waiting waiting weeks for me to answer, and you’re still annoyed about it weeks later and I just gave you a chance to reply to you … and ah … you’re back to your one-size-fits-all “hypocrisy” thangy.
Does it work on people you deal with every day… you say , “HYPOCRITE!” and they fall on the ground and start shivering? I mean you act like Harry Potter pointing his teeny little Brit metro-wand and zapping hither and yon with the magic wand ON button, “hypocrite!!”
So ask me bridge-keeper, your questions three I am not afraid!
I asked you about 20 times. Unlike CA they were questions relevant to the discussion.
But, you wimped out, as usual. I’ll ask you questions in the future, and I expect you to evade those as well. Its just how you operate, being a hypocrite.
Well what’s the big deal, Lampoon? Aren’t you proud of who you are? Don’t be reticent about clarifying whether you are a man in a woman’s body or a woman in a man’s body. Horst Krause wasn’t reticent about it at all. Why should you be?
Monsieur Lampoon. I do a lot in weeks of time so I honestly do not remember what you’ve asked me that you say I didn’t reply to. ANd I don’t think it’s fair to demand I spent five hours dragging through archived comments to FIND them. WHAT are the questions that irritate you so much you keep complaining how much it annoys you that I won’t answer them, while never giving me the questions in the first place?
I’m glad you think so much of my abilities that they include mind reading… but alas. No.
Oh. BTW. Sonoran Alliance dropped off service for me yesterday, so I couldn’t access it. Occam’s Razor.
Wanumba,
Have you had a chance to check into the stand up circuit in your part of Africa?
You should.
I bet you could work CA into the act…you know, the guy that chimes in with something completely irrelevant, so wacky and out of the blue that it’s just funny (think Charlie Sheen).
Think about it.
Hi, Rob, honey! Have any kisses for me today, sweetie?
You gave me lots of kisses the other day, Rob. Lots of “xoxoxoxo”. How come I don’t get any today?
ConAm…
WINNING!!!!
What? STILL no kisses?
Well what happened, Rob? You said this to me the day after Christmas:
“Why bother with silly, wimpy football guys when I have you to fantasize about?”
“muah…xoxoxoxo”
You don’t “fantasize” about me any more? You don’t prefer me over football players any more? No more “muah…xoxoxoxo”? Gone are the kisses?
ConAm,
Clearly, you’re hopes of fulfilling your fantasy of a mid-age, love filled gay tryst are getting the best of you. Laying in a field of just blooming daisies, your lover stroking away the wisps of hair that dare to waft over your ever increasing receding hairline with the firm, yet gentle, touch that only a man has…reaching over and gently popping open another Keystone light ice from the 30pk as he reads your favorite passages from ‘Pinheads and Patriots’ to you in that soft, husky come hither voice…
Obviously, this is something you’ve held onto for some time now and no doubt been holding your true feelings deep within.
Reading your most recent spate of posts, and their subtle homosexual fantasy filled innuendo, it’s noticeable to everyone that you’ve reached the tipping point.
If my sarcasm has fueled this or played any small part in releasing your fantasies, I sincerely apologize. It wasn’t my intent to lead you on or raise your hopes to the level they’ve manifested to.
Hey, you’ve GOT to be a better novelist, Darling, than Klute. You should be writing the books.
When do you get to the sex part in this novel of yours? It’s not going to sell unless it has some explicit “sin” in it, you know. Tell us about the “love making” part. I’m sure readers would like to hear about that. It would probably be a real education.
Rob says:
December 31, 2011 at 3:23 am
Wanumba,
Have you had a chance to check into the stand up circuit in your part of Africa?
You should.
I bet you could work CA into the act…you know, the guy that chimes in with something completely irrelevant, so wacky and out of the blue that it’s just funny (think Charlie Sheen).
Think about it
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
*Snif.* I even included a Monty Pylon reference for grumpy Lampoon and look how tense ya’ll are.
Chad Snow has been offering his “wisdom” in this thread and I think that many fail to appreciate his wide-ranging expertise. He is not only an attorney (amublance chaser) but, due to the nature of his work, he also knows a lot about the practice of medicine. No, he’s not a doctor. He didn’t go to medical school but he knows a lot more about the practice of medicine than doctors do. How? Why it’s his vast personal experience! Well here, read what he has to say for yourself:
“Doctors Aren’t Always Right”
“I had a doctor testify in a hearing today who I normally respect but who had it all wrong in this case. At issue was whether or not walking on crutches and placing all of one’s weight on their non-injured foot can aggravate an underlying asymptomatic condition in their heel. This doctor, who shall remain nameless, testified that it is impossible for someone to develop increased pain in the uninjured leg/foot from placing all their weight on it while recovering from surgery.”
“I’ve never wanted to take the stand and testify worse than I did today. I had surgery on my right knee three weeks ago and have been using crutches and placing all my weight on my left leg. And guess what? My left leg hurts worse than the one that had surgery! It just goes to show that doctors can have their opinions – but they are just that – opinions. I’ve had doctors in other cases testify that knee injuries shouldn’t result in any restrictions on prolonged sitting. Bullcrap. I can only sit comfortably for about 30 minutes until my right leg falls asleep and I need to stand for a few minutes.”
http://www.azworkerscompattorney.net/search/label/Attorney%20Snow%27s%20Knee%20Injury
Not only does Chad Snow know better than doctors, but he also touts the virtues of lawyers over doctors:
“Doctors make you wait in their waiting rooms much much much longer than lawyers.” – Chad Snow
So the next time you need medical care, don’t go to your doctor, go see Chad Snow instead. He knows better! Besides, you won’t have to wait as long in the waiting room.
Now Chad Snow is a genuine American hero. He and his law firm see to it that people get a fair shake if they are entitled to workers’ compensation under the law. As his website says:
“Arizona Immigrant Worker Injury Law Firm Stands Up for Your Rights”
Not only that, but Snow is big on enforcing the law:
“Equal treatment for injured immigrant workers is the law in Arizona.”
He even reminds us of the law:
“Remember: If you were injured at your job in Arizona, your immigration status is not a factor. You are as deserving of workers’ compensation benefits as a worker who is a U.S. citizen. The Arizona Workers Compensation Act defines covered employees as “every person in the service of an employer … including aliens legally or illegally permitted to work for hire … ” (A.R.S. 23-901(6)(b).”
Snow and his law firm even go so far as to tell you when you should seek their help:
“You Deserve Workers’ Comp Coverage, Regardless of Your Immigration Status
If you are an immigrant or undocumented worker who has been seriously injured at your job, you should speak with Snow & Carpio immediately if:”
“Your employer does not seem to care that you were hurt while on the job.
Your employer tries to send you to one of their doctors.
You have an injury that will require surgery or keep you from working for more than 14 days.
Your employer’s insurer has delayed your benefits or has denied you the medical treatment you need.
Your employer’s insurance company has denied your injury claim outright.
Your doctor has determined that you cannot work, but you are not receiving benefits.
The Industrial Commission of Arizona has miscalculated your lost wages.
Your job has been given to someone else.
You have the same right to pursue workers’ compensation wage, health and medical benefits as anyone else in the state. Our experienced, caring Snow & Carpio attorneys will see to it that your rights are protected.”
http://www.snowcarpio.com/Practice-Areas/Protection-for-Arizona-Immigrant-Workers.shtml
You can get a free initial consultation from Snow but his website doesn’t say a word about how much his services are going to cost.
How do you work out the charges for your services, Snow? Do you take these cases on a contingency basis or is it fee for service? How much is the average undocumented worker charged for your services? I mean the average undocumented worker with a workers’ compensation issue isn’t a surgeon or a bank president. They are not likely to be wealthy. Nevertheless, serving such clients is part of how you earn your living as an attorney. How do you manage to earn a lawyer’s living, and even have your law firm donate $1,500 to Citizens for a Better Arizona, serving such clients?
Shane, your site has lost all credibility allowing sick losers like ConAm to post here. The personal attacks are sickening. Intelligent people like Tyler Montague and I try to add to the discussion, and have the balls to do it under our real names to try and stay civilized. I will never return to this site, and encourage other intelligent people to get their discussion elsewhere. ConAm, you are pathetic – and you know it.
ROFL! “Balls”? What would you know about “balls”, Snowman? You’re a yellow-bellied coward who has chosen to cut and run rather than to face the music.
You’ve put down Shane and SA numerous times in the past, ambulance chaser. So don’t act like this is something new for you, that this is your excuse to cut and run. Besides, you’re not the “real” Chad Snow anyway. He couldn’t possibly be as stupid and immature as the poster using and abusing his name here.
Hey, Faux Snow, don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.
Yep, ConAm has some serious issues. One is that he has no original ideas, just attacks that grow more juvenile and, more creepy and stalker-ish.
Is the face of conservatives that this site wants to promote?
BTW Happy New Years Chad, thanks for your work this year. Arizona is a better place without Pearce.
How do you “know” that was actually “Chad?”
I mean, lawyers bill by the minute.. and how many “Chad Snow” minutes have been spent of a day reading and commenting on Sonoran Alliance?
Oh gosh, Miss Lampoon. You missed the message. Here, let me repeat it again so that you can get focused:
Now Chad Snow is a genuine American hero. He and his law firm see to it that people get a fair shake if they are entitled to workers’ compensation under the law. As his website says:
“Arizona Immigrant Worker Injury Law Firm Stands Up for Your Rights”
Not only that, but Snow is big on enforcing the law:
“Equal treatment for injured immigrant workers is the law in Arizona.”
He even reminds us of the law:
“Remember: If you were injured at your job in Arizona, your immigration status is not a factor. You are as deserving of workers’ compensation benefits as a worker who is a U.S. citizen. The Arizona Workers Compensation Act defines covered employees as “every person in the service of an employer … including aliens legally or illegally permitted to work for hire … ” (A.R.S. 23-901(6)(b).”
Snow and his law firm even go so far as to tell you when you should seek their help:
“You Deserve Workers’ Comp Coverage, Regardless of Your Immigration Status
If you are an immigrant or undocumented worker who has been seriously injured at your job, you should speak with Snow & Carpio immediately if:”
“Your employer does not seem to care that you were hurt while on the job.
Your employer tries to send you to one of their doctors.
You have an injury that will require surgery or keep you from working for more than 14 days.
Your employer’s insurer has delayed your benefits or has denied you the medical treatment you need.
Your employer’s insurance company has denied your injury claim outright.
Your doctor has determined that you cannot work, but you are not receiving benefits.
The Industrial Commission of Arizona has miscalculated your lost wages.
Your job has been given to someone else.
You have the same right to pursue workers’ compensation wage, health and medical benefits as anyone else in the state. Our experienced, caring Snow & Carpio attorneys will see to it that your rights are protected.”
http://www.snowcarpio.com/Practice-Areas/Protection-for-Arizona-Immigrant-Workers.shtml
You can get a free initial consultation from Snow but his website doesn’t say a word about how much his services are going to cost.
How do you work out the charges for your services, Snow? Do you take these cases on a contingency basis or is it fee for service? How much is the average undocumented worker charged for your services? I mean the average undocumented worker with a workers’ compensation issue isn’t a surgeon or a bank president. They are not likely to be wealthy. Nevertheless, serving such clients is part of how you earn your living as an attorney. How do you manage to earn a lawyer’s living, and even have your law firm donate $1,500 to Citizens for a Better Arizona, serving such clients?
zzzzzz
More boring drivel. You hate anyone that has an education, no worries, you can always get work at dead animal pickup on the highways.
Envy, its a deadly sin.
Man in woman’s body? Woman in man’s body? Which is it in your case, Miss Lampoon?
Oh, and since you missed the point. Here it is again for you.
Now Chad Snow is a genuine American hero. He and his law firm see to it that people get a fair shake if they are entitled to workers’ compensation under the law. As his website says:
“Arizona Immigrant Worker Injury Law Firm Stands Up for Your Rights”
Not only that, but Snow is big on enforcing the law:
“Equal treatment for injured immigrant workers is the law in Arizona.”
He even reminds us of the law:
“Remember: If you were injured at your job in Arizona, your immigration status is not a factor. You are as deserving of workers’ compensation benefits as a worker who is a U.S. citizen. The Arizona Workers Compensation Act defines covered employees as “every person in the service of an employer … including aliens legally or illegally permitted to work for hire … ” (A.R.S. 23-901(6)(b).”
Snow and his law firm even go so far as to tell you when you should seek their help:
“You Deserve Workers’ Comp Coverage, Regardless of Your Immigration Status
If you are an immigrant or undocumented worker who has been seriously injured at your job, you should speak with Snow & Carpio immediately if:”
“Your employer does not seem to care that you were hurt while on the job.
Your employer tries to send you to one of their doctors.
You have an injury that will require surgery or keep you from working for more than 14 days.
Your employer’s insurer has delayed your benefits or has denied you the medical treatment you need.
Your employer’s insurance company has denied your injury claim outright.
Your doctor has determined that you cannot work, but you are not receiving benefits.
The Industrial Commission of Arizona has miscalculated your lost wages.
Your job has been given to someone else.
You have the same right to pursue workers’ compensation wage, health and medical benefits as anyone else in the state. Our experienced, caring Snow & Carpio attorneys will see to it that your rights are protected.”
http://www.snowcarpio.com/Practice-Areas/Protection-for-Arizona-Immigrant-Workers.shtml
You can get a free initial consultation from Snow but his website doesn’t say a word about how much his services are going to cost.
How do you work out the charges for your services, Snow? Do you take these cases on a contingency basis or is it fee for service? How much is the average undocumented worker charged for your services? I mean the average undocumented worker with a workers’ compensation issue isn’t a surgeon or a bank president. They are not likely to be wealthy. Nevertheless, serving such clients is part of how you earn your living as an attorney. How do you manage to earn a lawyer’s living, and even have your law firm donate $1,500 to Citizens for a Better Arizona, serving such clients?
Well is it a woman in a woman’s body, a man in a man’s body, a woman in a man’s body or a man in a woman’s body, Miss Lampoon?
Conservative American says:
January 1, 2012 at 3:08 pm
LOL! You’re not getting it, wanumba.
, the best you are going to do is to reveal them for what they really are.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Yup. Being outside the bubble, my methods to draw it out are a bit different, that’s all.
Oh, like my new photo? I took it myself January 1st 2012, southern edge of the Sahara Desert.
Nice kids, heading home after helping their parents work. If you saw how they live ya’ll would cry, but see the great smiles and they’re super polite and friendly, shaking hands and greeting so nicely.
Yes, wanumba, I like it! Good job!
Chad Snow says:
January 1, 2012 at 11:22 pm
CA, “in your support for Sheriff Arpaio”???? I don’t support Sheriff Arpaio. Next time, think before typing.
BTW, “LOL” is for teenage girls.
::::::::::::::::::::::
Haha! Lampoon and Rob done in by Chad.
Gee, now Snow is focused on teenage girls! Maybe he’s going to recall them all, LOL!