Guest Opinion: Has Raul Grijalva Finally Met His Match?


By Andy Kirchoff

It’s time for another round of America’s favorite political quiz game, “Who’s that Politician?”

Blanca GuerraFor 100 points and a trip to Arizona: “This Grand Canyon State resident was one of 31 congressmen to vote to refuse to certify Ohio election results in 2004, and in 2008 was rated the most liberal congressman in the country by the National Journal. He even co-chairs the House Progressive Caucus with Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN).”

The correct answer is Rep. Raul Grijalva (minus 100 point for anyone who answered Gabrielle Giffords. She’s far more moderate in both her politics and persona). In spite of this deeply liberal worldview (and voting record to match), he has handily won re-election in his D+6 District since his first foray into Congress back in 2002. There are various reasons for his electoral success. I would speculate that part of his success is simply due to his visible contrast to the rest of the Arizona political class. In a political climate defined by the politics of immigration restriction, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is an anomaly. Rather than embrace the “stand with Arizona” motto of the tea party, he opted to organize a “big-business” boycott of the very state he represents in Congress. When SB1070 author and now former State Senator Russell Pearce (R-AZ) was pandering to neonazis and racists, Grijalva was organizing for the pro-reconquista group MEChA. If nothing else, Grijalva has been the voice of the disaffected fringe left of Arizona – such political posturing is bound to attract some political support, even as it alienates other potential allies.

A more likely (admittedly partial) explanation of Grijalva’s political success is his strong support from Veteran’s Groups. His record on veteran’s issues is indeed very commendable; he’s filed and/or supported many bills on behalf of Veterans over the years, including the popular REVAMP Act, a bill designed to repair crumbling Veteran’s facilities. Certainly, focusing constituent services on veteran’s assistance is a praiseworthy trait. Alas, “one-issue” voters do not a Republic make, and Grijalva’s attention to this issue can’t conceal his far left-of-center beliefs on other issues.

Enter Blanca Guerra, Arizona co-leader of Café Con Leche Republicans. She’s pro-immigration reform, but doesn’t embrace Rep. Grijalva’s economic extremism. She’s socially conservative with private sector experience and business acumen. She’s even able to neutralize Grijalva’s pro-veteran bona fides, as Blanca is a veteran of the United States Air Force. Grijalva’s renown and the overall partisan nature of the 7th CD will certainly be difficult to overcome. Nonetheless, Grijalva’s intemperate and ill-fated response to SB1070, when combined with his virulently left-wing ideology, could allow a Republican the opportunity to oust him from his seat. Needless to say, we’re very proud of Blanca here at CCLR, and we’d love nothing more than to see Blanca’s campaign send shockwaves throughout the Arizona political establishment. Here’s your chance, Arizona GOPers: let’s give Blanca the support she needs to win this thing!


Comments

  1. I was very hesitant about posting this on Sonoran Alliance given some of the allegations made about Russell Pearce. I would ask the author if he has ever met or had a conversation with Russell Pearce or did he simply utilize what others have been saying? Having known Russell for many years, I would disagree strongly with the assertion.

    The remainder of this post discusses defeating one of the most liberal and destructive congressmen in Congress, Raul Grijalva.

    The argument made here is how best to beat him (mostly messaging) and which candidate best represents that strategy.

  2. Shane the author has NEVER even attempted to contact me. I have NEVER pandered to any race based or hate based group and I have NEVER associated with such a group in my entire life. This is a myth put out by the media from a picture taken at a pro America rally I and JD Hayworth had at the Capitol. It is insulting and not true. If one running for office cannot tell the simple truth instead of pandering, It worries me.

    I have spent my entire live in pubic service, 24 years in law enforcement (shot in the line of duty and critically wounded and I have a son critically wounded by illegal alien in a gun battle and neither of us hate those individuals, but stary vigilant in our duty to this nation and the rule of law) as a Judge, as Director of MVD and as a legislator. I have never had accusations of such except by the media and it is only as a legislator. It is disappointing to say the least. I have spent my 65 years working to enforce our laws equally and fairly. Illegal is not a race, it is a crime and I have never made it a race issue. It applies to everyone equally. I am the guy who wrote Proposition 107 that was on the ballot in 2010 and passed by a huge margin that eliminated discrimination in education entrance exames and goverment hiring and promotions.

  3. LEO IN TSN says:

    Raul Grijalva is even more anti-American than described herein. BUT, we don’t need another “pro-immigration reform” (read: pro-amnesty) stealth liberal hiding in the campaign ads of AZ airtime.

    We are fortunate that we already have a solid conservative (and a real R) opposing Grijalva, and she is Gabrielle Saucedo Mercer. She has already inspired such excitement in Baja AZ that Grijalva is whimpering for money from all of his anti-American super-supporters.

    Go to Mrs. Mercer’s website, come out to meet her, and get to know a conservative American patriot. Baja AZ needs to rally behind a real conservative, Gabby Saucedo Mercer.

    God bless America.

  4. Leo,

    Your characterization of anyone who disagrees with you on immigration reform as a “stealth liberal” is representative of a major problem with our party these days, that threatens to shrink Ronald Reagan’s “big tent” into a “pup tent” that is not competitive in many elections. Immigration reform does not necessarily mean amnesty, and by immediately labeling anyone who disagrees with you on one issue a “stealth liberal” you do our party a disservice. Obama and his fellow socialists are planning a serious effort to turn Arizona blue. There are conservatives on both sides of this issue.

    As Ronald Reagan famously stated: ““The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.” Ronald Reagan supported immigration reform. It’s unfortunate that Congress did not follow up promptly on the 1986 reforms with more resources for border security, and to this day still has not fixed guest worker programs either. However, that doesn’t mean that reform is bad; it means Congress needs to work on this issue.

    Actually, your views on immigration are the minority view, both within the GOP and Americans in general. According to PEW Research, founded by a conservative Republican, 49% of “staunch conservatives” support “favor providing a way for illegal immigrants in the U.S. to gain citizenship, if they pass background checks, pay fines and have jobs”, while 49% are opposed, and even higher percentages of other Republican or Republican-leaning ideological groupings support immigration reform. LIkewise 72% of Americans in general support immigration reform.
    http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/section-8-domestic-issues-and-social-policy/

    I’ve never heard Blanca Guerra call for amnesty. We cannot enforce our way to a working immigration system unless we want to wreck broad swaths of our economy in the process, as well as throw the civil rights of law abiding Hispanics ‘under the bus.’ Like any complex problem, this problem must be solved by addressing root causes, not symptoms.

    • Conservative American says:

      Bob,

      You have quoted Ronald Reagan but you haven’t told the whole story about Ronald Reagan regarding immigration. Let’s hear the rest of the story.

      In 1986, President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act which legalized close to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The law was supposed to be a comprehensive solution, with provisions intended to clamp down on border security, but the provisions were never enforced. The result was a subsequent explosion in illegal border crossings with an estimated 11 million illegal aliens living in the U. S..

      The above fact about Ronald Reagan bears directly on immigration rather than being a general statement by Reagan about agreeing and disagreeing.

      You offer poll data, some on specific issues and some regarding the vague and undefined term “immigration reform”, to back up your claim that the view of LEO IN TSN is the “minority” view. Here is some poll data on the other side:

      A Rasmussen poll of likely Arizona voters conducted on June 29th, 2010 found:

      Arizonans favor SB1070 66% to 24%.
      Oppose the Justice Department’s lawsuit against the state 62% to 23%.
      73% support strict sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers. Only 15% oppose strict sanctions.
      Oppose automatically granting citizenship to a child born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents 64% to 26%.

      What is the national picture?

      67% of likely U.S. voters believe that states should enforce immigration laws if the federal government fails to do so (Rasmussen, February 2011).

      72% of likely voters believe parents should be required to prove they are legal residents when registering their child for public school; only 21% oppose such a requirement. Only 32% believe that children of illegal aliens should be allowed to attend public school in the U.S., opposed to 53% who disagree (Rasmussen, August 2011).

      81% of likely voters oppose granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens in their state, with 12% supporting tuition breaks for illegal aliens (Rasmussen, August 2011).

      61% of likely American voters “believe that a child born in the United States to a woman who is here illegally should not automatically become a U.S. citizen” (Rasmussen, April 2011).

      66% of Americans believe that the U.S. “should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens” (CNN, April 2010).

      82% think that businesses should be required to use E-Verify to determine a potential employee’s work status. Only 12% oppose such a requirement (Rasmussen, May 2011).

      So now, between your comment and mine, Bob, we likely have a balanced view regarding immigration issues with data being presented to support both sides. That is fair and a good thing.

      • More immigration enforcement and immigration reform are not mutually exclusive. Read the PEW Research report. Americans want both. http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/section-8-domestic-issues-and-social-policy/

        • Conservative American says:

          Regardless of who founded it, Pew is not an objective and unbiased source. It worked in conjunction with the most liberal organizations to deceive Congress regarding campaign finance reform which was, of course, ultimately overturned by SCOTUS:

          http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Buying%20Reform2.html

          Shane has made it clear that he wants comments which are relevant to the posted article and that he does not want any “tennis matches” between posters. So we need to ask ourselves just how relevant it will be if we continue on and when do we stop.

          I think we should stop here. We have both had our say and we are moving away from the topic at hand. If you choose to continue, I will continue and the net result will be that Shane will remove posts by both of us which he considers to be inappropriate. That would be fine with me as your posts will go right along with mine.

          Shall we stop here or do you choose to continue on? Your choice.

          • Yet you cite Rasmussen, CA….

            • Conservative American says:

              Rob, I’m not taking the bait. I’m stopping right here, right now unless Bob chooses to continue. Stop instigating.

              • “Regardless of who founded it, Pew is not an objective and unbiased source.”

                Not baiting at all.

                Merely pointing out that you discounted Quasius claims due to him citing Pew stats.

                When you used Rasmussen stats and we all know which way they bend.

              • Conservative American says:

                See below.

              • PEW Research is not attached to any advocacy group, and was funded by a prominent conservative Republican, Joseph Pew:
                http://pewresearch.org/docs/?DocID=139
                http://www.pewtrusts.org/about_us.aspx

                I”ll take PEW Research statistics any day over the manufactured data from organizations like FAIR, NumbersUSA, CIS, etc., all of which were founded or co-founded by John Tanton, notorious for his ties to Planned Parenthood, Zero Population Growth, and his anti-Hispanic rants and writing about eugenics.

              • Conservative American says:

                Bob,

                See my post below addressing Pew as a source.

          • TruConserv says:

            It’s a bit intellectually disingenuous to post a lie and then demand a cease of further posts, especially when coupled with a threat of being subjected to one of your bizarre posting tantrums.

            Pew Polls are widely considered reliable by all but the extreme right-wing.

            Conversely, Rasmussen, of late, is widely considered biased in favor of the extreme right, a consideration typically born out by its dismal record in accurately predicting eventually measured events and universes. (If you have to ask what that means .,.. then you don’t belong in this discussion.)

            For example, Rasmussen once predicted the conservative candidate in Hawai’i would win over liberal Sen. Inouye by more than 10-percent. The liberal later won by more then 50-percent.

            As a lawyer whose largest client is an international leader is statistical measurements, I know the players … and Rasmussen is not a credible one.

    • “…Actually, your views on immigration are the minority view, both within the GOP and Americans in general…” “…throw the civil rights of law abiding Hispanics ‘under the bus…”

      LOL! I assume this comment stems from being a frequent visitor to feathered bastard, or perhaps being a cub reporter for the Walter Cronkite Socialist / Communist School of Journalism. If this drivel from “Baja Arizona” would attract used car salesmen, perhaps abstention would have been the best policy.

      • On second thought:

        “…Bob Quasius is the Midwest Outreach Director for Somos Republicans, a grassroots Hispanic Republican organization based in Arizona and rapidly expanding nationwide…”

        “…He believes enforcement-only strategies not only ineffective but harmful to both the U.S. and the immigrant community. Bob is spearheading the Nebraska Compact, using the successful Utah Compact as a template to build a broad-based coalition of community, political, religious and business leaders in Nebraska…”

        • In case you hadn’t figured it out, most of the leadership of that organization left some time ago, myself included.

          I continue to believe enforcement-only strategies not only will not fix immigration, but are harmful as well, to both immigrants and our economy.

          • Conservative American says:

            Please define precisely what you include in “enforcement-ony strategies”.

            • Enforcement-only means no reform of existing immigration/guest worker laws other than more enforcement.

              The reason I say enforcement-only won’t work is that our need for ‘guest workers’ far exceeds existing quotas, and more enforcement won’t fix unrealistically low quotas. We need a legal immigration system that better reflects the marketplace, not arbitrary quotas set by Congress under heavy influence from special interests, such as labor unions that don’t want guest worker programs.

              Historically, whenever our legal immigration system became significantly disconnected from the needs of our economy, illegal immigration resulted. For example, strict quotas on Southern and Eastern immigration in 1921 and 1924 led to several million illegal immigrants several years later. Ditto for ban on Chinese in the 1880s at a time when railroads were being built and others generally refused that type of dangerous work.

              • Conservative American says:

                Bob,

                Without addressing the rest of your comment, I think that I wasn’t clear about what I am trying to get at. So permit me restate my question.

                Which activities do you consider to be part of “enforcement”? For example, do you consider requiring employers to participate in E-Verify to be an “enforcement” activitiy, as opposed to acting on whether or not an employer has complied? That is just one area. Can you please be more specific about which activities you consider to be “enforcement”.

                I’m trying to get a handle on what you specifically consider to be in the category of “enforcement”, as the term is vague and general, lacking in specifics.

                Thanks!

              • How did we achieve “MORE enforcement?” Enforcement has been sh*t-canned by two presidents in a row. The government/business/media cartel has lied for over a dozen years in a row that the U.S. illegal alien population is 8-12 million, when it likely doubled under George Bush. There are not multiple states drafting anti-illegal immigrant legislation because there has been MORE enforcement. We have illegals in the streets laughing of the law and daring anyone to enforce it. Reform? We need to reform the enforcement part starting at the top with impeachment and prison for malfeasance and hanging for treason.

              • E-Verify is a tactic. If all we’re doing is e-verify then that would be an enforcement-only strategy. If we implemented mandatory national e-verify AND reformed guest worker programs, etc. then that would not be an enforcement only strategy.

              • Conservative American says:

                Excuse me, Bob, but that doens’t answer the question I asked. Let me restate it for you:

                “Which activities do you consider to be part of “enforcement”?”

                Furthermore, when you say, ” If all we’re doing is e-verify then that would be an enforcement-only strategy”, you are not being clear whether you are referring to simply mandating the use of E-Verify by employers or whether you mean law enforcement activity secondary to non-compliance with the legal requirement.

                You see, you keep referring to “enforcement-only” but you haven’t defined what constitutes enforcement. Please clarify specifically what you are referring to when you use the term “enforcement”.

                Thanks!

              • As I stated, we have a LACK of enforcement. So what you stand for is even LESS enforcement and a free-ride amnesty for criminal illegal aliens – they should jump ahead of immigrants who have entered the country legally?

              • E-Verify as a stand alone measure would be an enforcement-only as it does nothing to reform immigration. Note that e-verify is also not all that good a program. Undocumented immigrants can circumvent e-verify by using someone else’s real name and social security number, often a family member or friend’s identity, while law abiding citizens and legal immigrants who get falsely flagged as ineligible to work can end up spending weeks fighting with big government bureaucracies. In fact, the GAO put the percentage of undocumented immigrants fails to detect at 54%, a percentage that no doubt would rise if we made e-verify mandatory nationwide. In other words, e-verify is not the ‘magic bullet’ it’s made out to be.

                I contend that illegal immigration levels correlate more to the demands of our labor markets. Recently labor demand is very soft, and net illegal immigration has dropped to zero. During the early 2000s unemployment was quite low and illegal immigration levels were quite high.

                We can do our economy tremendous good by reforming legal immigration to better reflect free markets rather than arbitrary – and very low – quotas that are disconnected from need. In 2010 the U.S. admitted 1.7 million temporary workers and trainees, while there were approximately 7 million undocumented workers above and beyond that 1.7 million.

                E-Verify, Secure Communities, SB1070, etc. won’t do a thing to allow more guest workers or legal immigrants to fill unmet labor needs. There’s a tendency to focus on those already here illegally, while not asking ourselves: what is the root cause of this problem? We need to be asking ourselves, how do we fix legal immigration, and secondarily how do we deal with those already here, since clearly it’s not practical to deport 11 million. Is there a middle ground between mass amnesty and mass deportations?

              • Conservative American says:

                I’m beginning to think, Bob, that you are avoiding my question because I have asked it repeatedly and have yet to get an answer from you. Let me ask again:

                “Which activities do you consider to be part of “enforcement”?”

                Now Bob, are you simply unable to answer that question? If so, just say so.

                The point is that “enforcement-only” has become a buzz term which is used without ever being defined. You have spoken several times about E-Verify but that isn’t what I have repeatedly asked you. I’ve asked you this:

                “Which activities do you consider to be part of “enforcement”?”

                Please either answer the question or, if you can’t answer it, simply say so.

                Thanks!

  5. Sgt. Flapjaw says:

    Mr. Kirchoff immediately got my attention by sliming Russell Pearce. With advocates like him, I would say that Blanca Guerra has an up hill battle with the likes of Kirchoff speaking on her behalf. Readers of this site know well of Grijalva and his record, and Russell Pearce and his, but not much about Ms. Guerra I bet.
    Not a good start. I suggest that she disavow Kirchoff and speak for herself, so far I am not impressed.

  6. It is the establishment up to their same old tricks. I wish these McRinos would stick their money up where the sun don’t shine!

  7. Andy Bernard says:

    DeeDee Blase is that you?

  8. Actually, the “guest” and the plant are card-carrying Chile Con Carne Republicans, born and bred in Obamaland.

    • Orale!

      How nice of you to give us another to add to the list.

      When’s the next cross burning?

      • Conservative American says:

        Rob, you complained bitterly to Shane about irrelevant posts and threads that go on and on in endless “tennis matches” between posters. Yet twice in this thread you have shown that while you want others to follow those rules, you don’t want to follow them yourself.

        Above, I sought to prevent a series of increasingly irrelevant and potentially endless posts with Bob Quasias. Despite seeing what I wrote to Bob, you chose to comment, seeking to instigate and keep the comments going.

        Here, you are choosing to engage in a potentially endless series of irrelevant exchanges with Zoo.

        If you don’t exercise some restraint and act like you were sincere with your complaints, we’re eventually going to end up right back where we were and Shane will not tolerate that. We could end up with not being able to comment at all. It has happened before and it can happen again.

        If that happens, you will not be able to offer any rebuttal to articles presenting points of view with which you disagree. Is that what you want? If not, then please make more of an effort to follow the rules and principles set recently by Shane.

        Thanks!

        • My, my ConAm….from 60-0 in 2 seconds, eh?

          May I ask you to point out where “you (I) complained bitterly to Shane about irrelevant posts…”?

          To remind you, I THANKED Shane for leaving your posts up. Now, if you want to describe them as irrelevant, well, that’s on you though I don’t think you’d get a lot of disagreement.

          I don’t know when Shane stopped monitoring the board and designated you “SA Cop”. Did I miss that announcement?

          Now, to the relevancy….This is apparently your new tactic. Rather than smother other posters with endless nonsensical replies, you deem them “not relevant”. My reply, included in a very relevant discussion with you and Bob, pointed out that you discounted stats that he put forth because of their source, Pew. Yet, in your reply, you cited Rassmussen stats. Extensively.

          As for Zoo….I’ve watched you, in your new role as SA Cop, admonish others for what you perceive to be infractions. Yet, strangely, both Zoo and p2012p throw insults about and post non relevant replies (like the one I replied to the scum with). But, SA Cop, ConAm is nowhere to be seen….

          As I’ve said before….If Shane chooses to remove my access, so be it. Contrary to what you intimate, it won’t kill me. However, so long as I can post, I will. My posting style and manner hasn’t changed since I first began posting here nearly a year ago.

          I have no intention of taking topics OT, ConAm and you know that. If you don’t like what I post there’s an easy solution….don’t reply.

    • Oh, this’ll be fun. Care to define a “Chili Con Carne Republican”? And how you came to choose that idiom?

      • Cafe Con Leche is a frequently used metaphor for assimilation in Latino America, which translates to “coffee with milk” (i.e. European with native Americans).

        • Oh, I know cafe con leche – I grew up in South Florida. I recommend the Tulipan Bakery on Belvedere Rd in West Palm Beach for the best cafe con leche and a pastry.

          I’m curious as to why zoo chose to diminutize Cafe Con Leche Republicans as “Chili Con Carne Republicans”?

      • Andy Bernard says:

        Klute I’m in the same boat. I get Cafe Con Leche but what exactly does a Chili Con Carne Republican imply?

        • It means: “Republicans who want America and the GOP to be more welcoming to immigrants.”

          http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/meet-the-team/andy-kirchoff-2

          The standard word deletion [illegal] to cover what their purpose is.

          It should read: ” Republicans who want America and the GOP to be more welcoming to illegal cheap labor.”

          Or it could read: “Democrats who want America and the GOP to be more welcoming to illegal cheap votes.”

          • Hmmm, still doesn’t explain the use of “Chili Con Carne”.

            • I suppose part of the pro-illegal alien PC agenda is to play ignorant. What illegals? What border? What Mexico? Enjoy yourself.

              • Andy Bernard says:

                Zoo, chile con carne and cafe con leche are different things. We aren’t questioning the motives of the group, we’re wondering why you are calling them something different than what they call themselves. Is there some inside joke I’m missing or do you have auto correct on you phone? I’m not even being accusatory here I’m just curious.

  9. There’s already a good conservative in the race with Gabrielle Salcedo-Mercer. Why would we need to have a pro-illegal alien amnesty Republican candidate when we already have a good Republican candidate who doesn’t support those views?

  10. Conservative American says:

    @ Rob and TC:

    Since Shane hasn’t weighed in I’m going to assume that he sees a discussion of Pew as a source to be relevant.

    “Propaganda and the money trail”

    “By The Washington Times”

    “In a lecture last year before a group of journalism students at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communications, Sean Treglia, a former program officer for the liberal Pew Charitable Trusts, claimed credit for co-coordinating a multi-year effort to secure the passage of the political-speech-curtailing McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill.”

    “Make no mistake: Pew and other liberal foundations successfully avoided any transparency in their financial dealings with propaganda organizations like National Public Radio (NPR) and the American Prospect (a left-wing magazine). Their funding of campaign-finance “reform” groups like Democracy 21, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Center for Public Integrity and People for the American Way also managed to avoid exposure.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/mar/22/20050322-091242-2078r/

    Which “other liberal foundations” is the article referring to? Let’s have a look at an article by Ryan Sager of the New York Post:

    “These foundations were: the Pew Charitable Trusts ($40.1 million), the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy ($17.6 million), the Carnegie Corporation of New York ($14.1 million), the Joyce Foundation ($13.5 million), George Soros’ Open Society Institute ($12.6 million), the Jerome Kohlberg Trust ($11.3 million), the Ford Foundation ($8.8 million) and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($5.2 million).”

    “Not exactly all household names, but the left-wing groups that these foundations support may be more familiar: the Earth Action Network, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, the Public Citizen Foundation, the Feminist Majority Foundation . . .”

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Buying%20Reform2.html

    I think that we are all familiar with George Soros and his Open Society Institute.

    See and hear Sean Tregalia blowing the whistle on Pew:

    • I’m not going to delve through the endless posts below…a quick scan was enough.

      It’s clear you have your opinion of Pew and that’s fine.
      What’s also clear is that Rasmussen leans right.

      So, let’s negate both sources that were cited, out of fairness.

      And, what’s left?

      I’ll agree entirely with Flapjaw; anyone can find a poll to support their opinion.

      • Conservative American says:

        Sorry, Rob, no sale.

        This is not an issue of my opinion. This is an issue of fact. The “endless posts below” you chose to not delve through contain irrefutable proof of the extreme liberal bias of Pew.

        You might want to bear this in mind:

        “About Sonoran Alliance”

        “Arizona’s most popular and prominent political blog covering political news and events, commentary and information with a blatantly conservative worldview.”

        You are not at Daily Kos.

        • Never said I was….and like I’ve told you before, genius, don’t read Kos. Not my style.

          This is entirely an issue of opinion.

          You dispute Pew as you feel you have read enough to make you believe it is biased.

          Many others dispute Rasmussen as they’ve read enough to make them believe it is biased.

          That is called opinion.

          • Conservative American says:

            No, Rob, this is not an opinion issue. This is an issue of cold, hard facts… although you’re entitled to you opinion about that. ;-)

    • Speaking of credibility issues, has anyone else researched groups like the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, and Center for Immigration Studies? Most of the statistics I hear quoted as justification for draconian immigration enforcement laws come directly or indirectly from these organizations, which were all founded/co-founded by John Tanton. Here’s his resume:
      http://www.thesocialcontract.com/answering_our_critics/tanton_resume.html

      I think liberals pegged him correctly as a bigot and population control nut, but the part they’re not telling us is that John Tanton is very much a progressive AKA liberal.

      • Conservative American says:

        That’s nice, Bob, but irrelevant. No one has cited those organizations in this thread. You, however, did in fact cite Pew. Keep it relevant, Bob.

  11. Conservative American says:

    (Pew continued)

    “Starting in 1994, Soros’s Open Society Institute and a few other leftist foundations began bankrolling front groups and so-called “experts” whose aim was to persuade Congress to swallow the fiction that millions of Americans were clamoring for “campaign-finance reform.” This deceptive strategy was the brainchild of Sean Treglia, a former program officer with the Pew Charitable Trusts. Between 1994 and 2004, some $140 million of foundation cash was used to promote campaign-finance reform. Nearly 90 percent of this amount derived from just eight foundations, one of which was the Open Society Institute, which contributed $12.6 million to the cause.”

    “The “research” which these groups produced in order to make a case on behalf of campaign-finance reform was largely bogus and contrived. For instance, Brennan Center political scientist Jonathan Krasno had clearly admitted in his February 19, 1999 grant proposal to the Pew Charitable Trusts that the purpose of the proposed study was political, not scholarly, and that the project would be axed if it failed to yield the desired results:”

    “The purpose of our acquiring the data set is not simply to advance knowledge for its own sake, but to fuel a continuous multi-faceted campaign to propel campaign reform forward. Whether we proceed to phase two will depend on the judgment of whether the data provide a sufficiently powerful boost to the reform movement.”

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977

    Ultimately, SCOTUS ruled large portions of the campaign finance reform which Pew promoted as being unconstitutional in that it violates the First Amendment. The decision was 5-4 along partisan lines.

    Of course, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) complained about SCOTUS overturning much of what Pew had promoted:

    “WASHINGTON, DC–Anna Burger, SEIU Secretary-Treasurer and Chair of the Change to Win labor federation, released the following statement condemning today’s United States Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:”

    “Today the US Supreme Court lifted the floodgates and started dismantling century-old restrictions on corporate electoral activity in the name of the ‘free speech rights’ of corporations–meaning if you are a ‘corporate person’ (aka a CEO or corporate official), you are now free to hit the corporate ATM and spend whatever of your shareholders’ money it takes to elect the candidates of your choice.”

    You can read the rest of Burger’s rant here at the website of the SEIU:

    http://www.seiu.org/2010/01/batten-down-the-hatches-supreme-court-opens-floodgates-for-corporate-spending-in-elections.php

    B. Hussein Obama made known his displeasure with SCOTUS, for overturning much of what Pew had worked so hard to put in place, in his inapporopriate remarks during a State of The Union address. You know, the one where Chief Justice Roberts shook his head “No!”

    • TruConserv says:

      Pew Charitable Trust and the Pew Polling are distinct entities connected simply by the name of a founder.

      Care to make any relevant comment on the Pew Polls?

      Simply stated: you are again out of your depth and have taken the thread off-topic with another long-winded, irrelevant post.

      Further, if it WERE that your post was on topic, a simple summary with a link would suffice. Please do try to be a good contributor to SA.

      • Conservative American says:

        TC wrote: “Pew Charitable Trust and the Pew Polling are distinct entities connected simply by the name of a founder.”

        Wrong, as always. Pew polling is sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

        “About the Center”

        “The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press is an independent, non-partisan public opinion research organization that studies attitudes toward politics, the press and public policy issues. In this role it serves as a valuable information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars and citizens.”

        “Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), the Center has been sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts since 1996.”

        http://www.people-press.org/about/

        • TruConserv says:

          You don’t understand the meaning of the word “distinct.”

          As your quote sustains my point, that Pew Research is independent, your rant remains just that – the mindless rant against a charity, having no bearing on the Research organization.

          You’re not fooling anyone.

          You right-wingers go after Pew Charities because you can’t go after the INDEPENDENT research entity.

          My position stands.

          • Conservative American says:

            No, TC, you’re not fooling anyone. You wrote this: “Pew Charitable Trust and the Pew Polling are distinct entities connected simply by the name of a founder.”

            That is wrong. Pew polling is sponsored by Pew Charitable Trusts. You’re quite simply wrong according to information from the Pew website itself.

      • Conservative American says:

        TC wrote: “Simply stated: you are again out of your depth and have taken the thread off-topic with another long-winded, irrelevant post. Further, if it WERE that your post was on topic, a simple summary with a link would suffice.”

        Really? Who wanted to continue the discussion about Pew?

        “TruConserv says:
        March 25, 2012 at 12:21 am”

        “It’s a bit intellectually disingenuous to post a lie and then demand a cease of further posts, especially when coupled with a threat of being subjected to one of your bizarre posting tantrums.”

        “Pew Polls are widely considered reliable by all but the extreme right-wing.”

        TC wrote: “Further, if it WERE that your post was on topic, a simple summary with a link would suffice.”

        ” Conservative American says:
        March 24, 2012 at 5:57 pm”

        “Regardless of who founded it, Pew is not an objective and unbiased source. It worked in conjunction with the most liberal organizations to deceive Congress regarding campaign finance reform which was, of course, ultimately overturned by SCOTUS:”

        “http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Buying%20Reform2.html”

        So you wanted to continue the discussion of Pew and I did offer a simple summary with a link.

        • TruConserv says:

          Pew Research and Pew Charities are distinct, independant entities.

          Rant all you want about the Charities – I don’t care.

          Pew Research, the group you are lying about with your efforts to muddy the waters with your nonsense about Pew Charities remains untouched by your off-topic posts.

          Pew Research remains a non-partisan, non-profit that has a proven record of conducting accurate polling. Sometimes the research “favors” conservative arguments, sometimes liberal — as you would expect given the American political spectrum.

          A poll that shows conservative agenda items lagging, btw, does not mean conservatives should abandon that issue, just that we need to better argue or explain that issue.

          HERE’S WHY ALL THIS MATTERS: when you only trust polls that reflect whatever they are paid to reflect, like Rasmussen, the conservative party loses out on the opportunity to refine its message and to select which issues to pursue. As I repeatedly have stated: when we argue with facts in a credible manner, the conservative agenda is unstoppable.

          Being afraid of reality is NOT a conservative value.

          • Conservative American says:

            Just for you, TC:

            Let’s be clear about the relationship between the Pew Research Center, which conducts Pew polls, and the Pew Charitable Trusts:

            “Public Opinion”

            “The Pew Research Center conducts public opinion research that helps inform national dialogues on a wide range of topics. Its polls assess Americans’ attitudes on domestic policy, economics, elections, foreign policy, the news media, computer technology, religion and social trends. Its projects also cover global public opinion and the status and views of Latinos in the United States.”

            “The Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of Pew and is based in Washington, D.C. As a non-advocacy organization, the center does not take positions on issues.”

            http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=288

            It could not be more clear and explicit. The Pew Research Center, which conducts polls, is a SUBSIDIARY of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

            “Definition of SUBSIDIARY
            : one that is subsidiary; especially : a company wholly controlled by another”

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidiary

          • Conservative American says:

            You are wrong again, TC:

            “The Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of Pew and is based in Washington, D.C. As a non-advocacy organization, the center does not take positions on issues.”

            http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=288

            It could not be more clear and explicit. The Pew Research Center, which conducts polls, is a SUBSIDIARY of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

            “Definition of SUBSIDIARY
            : one that is subsidiary; especially : a company wholly controlled by another”

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidiary

  12. Conservative American says:

    (Pew continued)

    “Where the Money Comes From”

    “The Tides Foundation is quickly becoming the 800-pound gorilla of radical activist funding, and this couldn’t happen without a nine-figure balance sheet. Just about every big name in the world of public grantmaking lists Tides as a major recipient. Anyone who has heard the closing moments of a National Public Radio news broadcast is familiar with these names. In 1999 alone, Tides took in an astounding $42.9 million. It gave out $31.1 million in grants that year, and applied the rest to a balance sheet whose bottom line is over $120 million. Since 1996, one foundation alone (the Pew Charitable Trusts) has poured over $40 million into Tides. And at least 17 others have made grants to Tides in excess of $100,000.”

    http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/225-tides-foundation–tides-center

    “Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the donees. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, “launder” the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a “paper trail.” Such contributions are called “donor-advised,” or donor-directed, funds.”

    “Through this legal loophole, nonprofit entities can also create for-profit organizations and then funnel money to them through Tides — thereby circumventing the laws that bar nonprofits from directly funding their own for-profit enterprises. Pew Charitable Trusts, for instance, set up three for-profit media companies and then proceeded to fund them via donor-advised contributions to Tides, which (for an 8 percent management fee) in turn sent the money to the media companies.”

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5184

    • TruConserv says:

      Again, you have confused Pew Charitable Trust with Pew Research.

      None to bright are you?

      Rather than bore you with a discussion of why Rasmussen is so poorly regarded in the polling world (it would largely be over your head, lots of boring statistical methodology and research math, etc.) let’s hone in on the relevant.

      1) PEW RESEARCH is a non-partisan, non-profit that routinely reports information reflecting favorably on (R) values and its agenda.

      2) RASMUSSEN, in contrast, is a for-profit and has a history of finding results that agree with whomever is paying the bills. As Rasmussen is largely hired by ultra-right groups, its research routinely finds favor in the ultra-right agenda. Again, when your practices are so corrupt that you blow a US Senate election by 40 percentage points, you pretty much suck as a polling company. Such is the sad case of Rasmussen.

      So, you can pick the organization that reports research that supports the (R) sometimes and the (D) agenda others (as you would expect given the composition of American politics) or you can pick the one that always finds whatever its customers want.

      Expressed another way – do you really want to be a CA?

      • Conservative American says:

        Again, I’m not confused, you are:

        TC wrote: “Pew Charitable Trust and the Pew Polling are distinct entities connected simply by the name of a founder.”

        Wrong, as always. Pew polling is sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

        “About the Center”

        “The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press is an independent, non-partisan public opinion research organization that studies attitudes toward politics, the press and public policy issues. In this role it serves as a valuable information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars and citizens.”

        “Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), the Center has been sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts since 1996.”

        http://www.people-press.org/about/

  13. Conservative American says:

    (Pew continued)

    We have demonstrated the connection of Pew with Tides above. Who else, besides Pew, supports Tides?

    “Immediately after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Tides formed a “9/11 Fund” to advocate a “peaceful national response.” Tides later replaced the 9/11 Fund with the “Democratic Justice Fund,” which was financed in large measure by the Open Society Institute of George Soros, who has donated more than $7 million to Tides over the years.”

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5184

    Another connection between Pew and Soros just as we saw with the promotion of campaign finance reform.

    • TruConserv says:

      Again, Pew Charities is a distinct entity from Pew Research.

      Attach the charity all you want.

      Pew Research has a proven history of being an accurate, non-partisan, non-profit polling organization.

      Sometimes it reports polling that supports the (R) argument, sometimes it reports arguments supporting the (D) argument, as you would expect given the American Political spectrum.

      Not everything comes down to black helicopters and conspiracies.

      Please, try to stay on-topic and do desist from hijacking yet another thread.

      • Conservative American says:

        Wrong again, TC. The Pew Research Center, which conducts the Pew polls, is a subsidiary of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

        http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=288

        • TruConserv says:

          Like the LIAR you are, you left out the key word: Independent, as in Independent Subsidiary.

          http://pewresearch.org/about/

          Pew Research has a proven history of being an accurate, non-partisan, non-profit polling organization.

          Sometimes it reports polling that supports the (R) argument, sometimes it reports arguments supporting the (D) argument, as you would expect given the American Political spectrum.

          Not everything comes down to black helicopters and conspiracies.

          Please, try to stay on-topic and do desist from hijacking yet another thread.

          • Conservative American says:

            No, TC, I did not leave out the word “independent”.

            Here is a verbatim qoute from the Pew website:

            ““The Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of Pew and is based in Washington, D.C. As a non-advocacy organization, the center does not take positions on issues.”

            You can read it for yourself by following this link:

            http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=288

  14. Conservative American says:

    Let’s be clear about the relationship between the Pew Research Center, which conducts Pew polls, and the Pew Charitable Trusts:

    “Public Opinion”

    “The Pew Research Center conducts public opinion research that helps inform national dialogues on a wide range of topics. Its polls assess Americans’ attitudes on domestic policy, economics, elections, foreign policy, the news media, computer technology, religion and social trends. Its projects also cover global public opinion and the status and views of Latinos in the United States.”

    “The Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of Pew and is based in Washington, D.C. As a non-advocacy organization, the center does not take positions on issues.”

    http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=288

    It could not be more clear and explicit. The Pew Research Center, which conducts polls, is a SUBSIDIARY of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

    “Definition of SUBSIDIARY
    : one that is subsidiary; especially : a company wholly controlled by another”

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidiary

    • TruConserv says:

      Like the LIAR you are, you deliberately edited out the word “Independant” from the phrase “Independant subsidiary”

      You simply can not be trusted. Period.

      “The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. The center conducts public opinion polling, demographic studies, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. It does not take positions on policy issues.

      The Center’s work is carried out by seven projects:

      Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
      Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism
      Pew Internet & American Life Project
      Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
      Pew Hispanic Center
      Pew Global Attitudes Project
      Pew Social & Demographic Trends Project
      The Pew Research Center is a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation which operates under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service code. It was established in 2004 as an independently operated subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. Financial information is available upon request to Nikolas Wissmann, Director of Financial Administration.”

      • Conservative American says:

        I did not edit out the word “independent”. It isn’t there. Here is the exact, verbatim quote from the page:

        “The Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of Pew and is based in Washington, D.C. As a non-advocacy organization, the center does not take positions on issues.”

        Now any reader who wants to find out which of us is telling the truth can simply follow this link and see for themselves if I edited out the word “independent”:

        http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=288

        You’re really caught this time, TC. Anyone who clicks on the link will immediately know which of us is telling the truth.

        • TruConserv says:

          Here’s the link that matters.

          http://pewresearch.org/about/

          You’re a liar. Plain and simple.

          You rail against Pew Charities so as to slime Pew Research, all the while you know Pew Research is a distinct entity and is a leading non-partisan, non-profit polling organization known for its accuracy.

          In contrast, you rely on the for-profit Rasmussen polls that, within the polling and reporting community is known as junk.

          Stop hijacking the thread with your multiple posts of the same spammy lies. At least have the decency to keep just one branch going, if you OCD drives you to take this thread off-topic. You don’t need to flood the board.

        • Conservative American says:

          The usual repetitive TC tripe, LOL!

          No, TC, here’s the link that matters:

          http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=288

          Why is that the link that matters? Because it’s the link which proves that you lied when you said that I edited out the word, “independent”.

          Now admit that you lied when you said that I edited out “independent”. Come on, TC, man up.

          • TruConserv says:

            The usual CA cowardice. He finds one nugget that he thinks, in his poorly understood world, demonstrates that maybe, just maybe, he is right and then he deliberately ignores all evidence to the contrary.

            Read all about Pew Research yourself, here: http://pewresearch.org/about/

            It is one of America’s premier, accurate, trustworthy NON-PARTISAN polling institutions.

            That’s why CA can’t stand it. If it’s not partisan, then he can’t abide it. Conservatives can win with the truth, and truthful polling helps us measure how well our message is being understood and how deep it has traveled.

            We can win with the truth, and accurate polling is just one tool, it’s worth defending.

            • Conservative American says:

              Yes, TC, we’ve all heard your usual litany before, LOL!

              What is important to read about Pew is this:

              “The Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of Pew and is based in Washington, D.C.”

              http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=288

              Pew Research is a subsidiary of Pew Charitable Trusts. What does that mean?

              “Definition of SUBSIDIARY”
              “: one that is subsidiary; especially : a company wholly controlled by another”

              http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidiary

              Now, TC, we’ve been over the same ground countless times. Shane is going to delete these posts because you continue coming back again and again instead of letting it go. We’ve both had our say numerous times but you insist on continuing on, as usual.

              I sincerely hope that Shane deletes all of these posts because yours will be gone.

              • TruConserv says:

                I’m sure you do hope Shane deletes my posts – it’s rather embarrassing for you to get your teeth kicked in like this, isn’t it?

              • Conservative American says:

                Get my teeth kicked in? Very nice, TC! Nothing to enhance SA quite like violent language. It’s that what’s beneath your thin veneer of civility?

                It’s time to drop it now, TC. We have both had our say numerous time already. Let it go and let’s move on.

  15. TruConserv says:

    The funny thing is that while he’s going to great lengths to connect liberals causes to a charity that also donates money to the independently and well-respected non-partisan Pew Research, CA is the same guy/gal who claimed it was wrong to hold Russell Pearce accountable for taking money from group identified as a hate group that supported Nazi-styled eugenics research. FWIW, I’m not using Nazi gratuitously, the group genuinely endorsed in the 1930’s, and continues to endorse today, eugenics research. Of course, Pearce just didn’t take money from them, he also let them actually draft SB1070.

    That linkage, says CA, is wrong. But, a well-respected non-partisan non-profit that routinely reporting findings supportive of (R) position, and is run as an independent entity, is to be slimmed by CA’s game of seven-degrees of Kevin Bacon.

    • Conservative American says:

      Not relevant. This is relevant, as Pew Research is a subsidiary of Pew Charitable Trusts:

      “Subsidiary Independence: A Stumbling Block?”

      “The matter of subsidiary independence is oftentimes a stumbling block to the parent business enterprise which may view an independent subsidiary as an uncontrolled subsidiary. But recognizing a subsidiary as an “independent” corporation is not the equivalent of regarding the subsidiary as “uncontrolled.” At all times, provided that appropriate bylaw provisions are adopted and maintained, the parent has the legal authority to hold the subsidiary accountable to meet “bottom line” financial objectives, to pursue acceptable policy mandates, to fulfill its goals and to otherwise conduct its affairs in a manner pleasing to the parent.”

      http://www.t-tlaw.com/cor-01.htm

      Accordingly, Pew Charitable Trusts has the legal authority to hold Pew Research accountable “to pursue acceptable policy mandates, to fulfill its goals and to otherwise conduct its affairs in a manner pleasing to the parent.”

      Pew Research has to conduct it’s affair in a manner “pleasing” to Pew Charitable Trusts.

      • TruConserv says:

        Silly boy, you don’t understand the difference between corporate forms.

        Pew Research is a 501(c) … your quote is about for-profit corporations.

        Further, the article states that such control is POSSIBLE *if* the proper corporate regulations and by-laws are in place.

        So, good on you, you wasted a bunch of time finding a off-point quote that doesn’t even stand for what your poor reading comprehension lead you to claim (again, we’re back to the ol’ liar or fool debate …)

        There’s a reason it takes seven years of hard work to become a lawyer …

        • Conservative American says:

          TC, you seem to have the idea that if you persist that somehow you can wear me down. Can’t happen, LOL! What is going to happen is that you’ll continue coming back with retorts until Shane deletes these posts. You don’t know when to let it go.

          We have both had our say numersous times already. Enough is enough. However, if you keep coming back, I’ll keep dishing it out to you.

          “Subsidiary Independence: A Stumbling Block?”

          “The matter of subsidiary independence is oftentimes a stumbling block to the parent business enterprise which may view an independent subsidiary as an uncontrolled subsidiary. But recognizing a subsidiary as an “independent” corporation is not the equivalent of regarding the subsidiary as “uncontrolled.” At all times, provided that appropriate bylaw provisions are adopted and maintained, the parent has the legal authority to hold the subsidiary accountable to meet “bottom line” financial objectives, to pursue acceptable policy mandates, to fulfill its goals and to otherwise conduct its affairs in a manner pleasing to the parent.”

          http://www.t-tlaw.com/cor-01.htm

          Accordingly, Pew Charitable Trusts has the legal authority to hold Pew Research accountable “to pursue acceptable policy mandates, to fulfill its goals and to otherwise conduct its affairs in a manner pleasing to the parent.”

          Pew Research has to conduct it’s affair in a manner “pleasing” to Pew Charitable Trusts.

          Now, I hope that Shane deletes all of these posts because I don’t mind if my posts go but I will be delighted to see yours go.

          • TruConserv says:

            Repeating the same discredited material does you – and this thread – no good.

            I’m not trying to wear you down … what a remarkably silly comment to make.

            I’m sure you do seek to have my comments deleted …

            • Conservative American says:

              I told you, TC, that if you persist in continuing this that I will continue to dish it out. You’ve seen fit to come back with more comments devoid of any useful or informative information so I’m now going to keep my promise to you:

              “Pewgate: The Battle of the Blogosphere”

              “Beginning in 1994, a group of non-profit foundations began bankrolling “experts” and front groups whose purpose was to bamboozle Congress into thinking that millions of Americans were clamoring for “campaign finance reform” – even though they were not.”

              “Sean P. Treglia, a former program officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, claims that he masterminded the scheme. Treglia boasted of his achievement at a March, 2004 conference at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication. New York Post reporter Ryan Sager obtained a videotape of Treglia’s remarks.”

              “I’m going to tell you a story that I’ve never told any reporter,” said Treglia. “Now that I’m several months away from Pew and we have campaign-finance reform, I can tell this story.”

              “Campaign finance reform “didn’t have a constituency,” admitted Treglia. So he set out to create one.”

              “Says Treglia, “The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot – that everywhere they [politicians] looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform.”

              “To this end, Pew and its allies dispensed $140 million between 1994 and 2004, 88 percent of which – a cool $123 million – came from just eight foundations: Pew Charitable Trusts; Schumann Center; Carnegie Corporation; Joyce Foundation; George Soros’s Open Society Institute; Jerome Kohlberg Trust; Ford Foundation; and MacArthur Foundation.”

              http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=9136

              Now, TC, can we stop here or are you going to insist upon continuing on like a petulant child? I’m willing to stop right here if you will simply let it go. We have both had our say countless times. Enough is enough. Let it go now and let’s move on to something else.

  16. Conservative American says:

    So let’s sum up, shall we.

    The polling arm of Pew is a subsidary of Pew Charitable Trusts.

    Pew engaged in a campaign of deception to lead Congress to believe that there was grassroots support for campaign finance reform. Other entities financially invovled in that effort included the Open Society of George Soros. Sean Treglia, formerly of Pew, blew the whistle in this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vh4Kp1TPWo

    The “research” Pew used to support it’s promotion of campaign finance reform was bogus, contrived and politically biased.

    In the end, SCOTUS gutted campaign finance reform as a violation of the First Amendment. Obama and the SEIU were bitter about that, not Conservative Republicans.

    Pew used the Tides Foundation to funnel money to for-profit organizations it created in order to bypass laws which ban nonprofits from directly funding their own for-profit enterprises.

    Pew donated in excess of $40 million to the Tides Foundation to which George Soros has donated over $7 million.

    Pew is not an objective, unbiased source. It is a liberal tool which shares goals and objectives with George Soros.

    • TruConserv says:

      Pew Research is not the polling arm of Pew Charities.

      Pew Research is an independent entity. You know this this to be true, you just simply can’t stop yourself from telling a falsehood.

      The Pew Research polls are the product of non-partisan, non-profit statistical research experts. I know this because my client – arguably the world’s leader in statistical measurements – and Pew frequently swap cross-recruit staff. It’s the major league for research statistical methodologies PhDs.

      Pew Research results routinely support (R) arguments and (D) arguments alike – as you would expect given the political makeup of America. Often both sides use the same polls to support their take on an issue over another.

      The far-right can’t stand this. Reality doesn’t matter to them, just that they feel good about their craziness.

      They hire the for-profit Rasmussen poll, who in turn deploys hackneyed methodologies to produce whatever result the client wants. They’ve become a joke in the Stats world.

      It matters because when the (R) has accurate polling it can determine how to properly convey its message to the undecided.

      Why some disagree with my position – that with the truth, the conservative message is unstoppable – is recondite to me.

      • Conservative American says:

        Pew Research is the polling arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts. It is not an independent entity. It is a subsidiary as stated on the Pew website:

        “The Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of Pew and is based in Washington, D.C.”

        Read it for yourself:

        http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=288

        • TruConserv says:

          http://pewresearch.org/about/

          Independent, non-partisan, non-profit. You know the truth, you prefer to lie.

          • Conservative American says:

            TC, how many times shall we repeat the same things? You are like a petulant child who doesn’t know when enough is enough. However, if you keep coming back, I’ll continue dishing it out to you.

            “The Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of Pew and is based in Washington, D.C.”

            Read it for yourself:

            http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=288

            My fondest hope is that Shane deletes these posts. Because you simply won’t let it go, after we have both had our say numerous times already, you have managed to ruin yet another thread.

            Let me assure you of two things, TC. First, you can’t wear me down. I can out-think and out-last you any day of the week. Secondly, if Pew is cited as a source again, I’ll be right back on the case again. You can count on that.

            So now that both of us have had our say countless time already, can you let it go?

            • TruConserv says:

              You keep repeating the same spammy lie … and then you whine that I won’t let it go.

              It’s always the other guy’s fault, right? Because you’re just sooooo willing to let it go, yourself?

              Pot. Kettle. Black.

              Don’t whine about others refuting your spam when you keep posting the same crap over and over-again.

              • Conservative American says:

                I told you, TC, that if you continue coming back with comments that I will keep dishing it out until the end of time. You’ve come back with another comment so you’re going to get more. Don’t think I’ll run out. I have enough about Pew to keep going until the end of time.

                Now you’ve complained about me posting the “same crap” over and over. So here is some new information for you:

                “With the economy still struggling and the nation involved in multiple military operations overseas, the public’s political mood is fractious,” says a new report from the Pew Research Center. “In this environment, many political attitudes have become more doctrinaire at both ends of the ideological spectrum, a polarization that reflects the current atmosphere in Washington.”

                “The report is titled, “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology.” The Pew Research Center has divided Americans into eight distinct political types plus one group that they’ve termed “Bystanders.” But how have they arrived at these conclusions?”

                “Using a statistical procedure called cluster analysis,” the report explains, “individuals are assigned to one of eight core typology groups based on their position on nine scales of social and political values — each of which is determined by responses to two or three survey questions — as well as their party identification.”

                “If you go to the Pew Research Center’s website, you can answer the survey questions yourself. And then you’ll learn the secret of how the Pew Research Center determined that only nine percent of Americans are “staunch conservatives” while fourteen percent are “solid liberals”:”

                “The questions are written to push people toward liberal answers.”

                “Garbage in, garbage out.”

                “One day a pollster will ask sensible, centrist questions and get a record-breaking, off-the-charts response to them.”

                “And that will be his last day of work at the Pew Research Center.”

                http://www.extremeink.com/awtk/2011/06/how-the-pew-research-center-makes-conservatives-sound-like-jackasses.html

                Now, TC, shall we stop here or are you going to insist on continuing to spam this thread with your repetitive litany of personal attacks, name calling and posts entirely devoid of any useful data or facts?

  17. Sgt. Flapjaw says:

    Geez!! Anyone can find a poll to support any view on any topic. Why don’t you guys start your own blog and begin a thread that will last until 2020? Or better yet, try to grow up!!

  18. Conservative American says:

    The polling arm of Pew Charitable Trusts is it’s subsidiary, Pew Research.

    Pew, while engaging in a stealth effort to falsely persuade Congress of grassroots support for campaign finance reform, joined with other liberal foundations which together provided 88 percent of the total monies spent on that effort.

    These foundations were: the Pew Charitable Trusts ($40.1 million), the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy ($17.6 million), the Carnegie Corporation of New York ($14.1 million), the Joyce Foundation ($13.5 million), George Soros’ Open Society Institute ($12.6 million), the Jerome Kohlberg Trust ($11.3 million), the Ford Foundation ($8.8 million) and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($5.2 million).

    Together, these are referred to as “The Big Eight” of the liberal world of free money to promote anti-Conservative causes.

    What did this liberal foundation crowd buy with its $123 million?

    For starters, a stable of supposedly independent pro-reform groups, with Orwellian names you may have heard in the press: the Center for Public Integrity, the William J. Brennan Center for Justice, Democracy 21 and so on.

    • TruConserv says:

      Why do you insist on posting the same crap time and time-again.

      Start one branch, then stay in it.

      This is just one of many reasons you are so disliked on this IBB. That and the fact that you routinely lie.

      Pew Research is an independent non-partisan, non-profit that is one of the most well respected polling institutions in the America. It’s research sometimes favors (D), it sometimes favors (R).

      That is exactly what you would expect in America.

      Your efforts to slime Pew are simply because like a lot of right-wing extremest, you can’t handle the truth.

      Sucks to be you.

  19. Andy Bernard says:

    So has anyone in CD-3 (not 7, like the author datedly refers to) actually met this woman? I’m all for people who haven’t been in politics running for office, but is this just a campaign with a website and a donate button or has she been speaking to groups?

  20. Conservative American says:

    Here is an example of Pew at work, busted by a Conservative blogger:

    “Shame on Pew: world’s most biased poll”

    “There is a Pew research study purporting to poll “scientists.” The question I immediately want answered is, what’s a “scientist?” The answer, as far as Pew is concerned, is anyone who is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.”

    “The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as “Increase diversity in the scientific community,” “Use science to advance human rights” (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), ”Sustainable Development” and ”Women’s Collaboration”.”

    “You don’t in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization. All you need to do is send them $146. School teachers are especially encouraged to join, and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist.”

    “So who would join an organization like this? LIBERALS! Which explains why only 6% of “scientists” who were polled said they were Republican.”

    “A New York Times article jumped on this survey to shame people into believing in global warming.”

    http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/shame-on-pew-worlds-most-biased-poll.html

  21. “I would speculate that part of his success is simply due to his visible contrast to the rest of the Arizona political class. In a political climate defined by the politics of immigration restriction, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is an anomaly. Rather than embrace the “stand with Arizona” motto of the tea party, he opted to organize a “big-business” boycott of the very state he represents in Congress. When SB1070 author and now former State Senator Russell Pearce (R-AZ) was pandering to neonazis and racists, Grijalva was organizing for the pro-reconquista group MEChA. If nothing else, Grijalva has been the voice of the disaffected fringe left of Arizona – such political posturing is bound to attract some political support, even as it alienates other potential allies.

    A more likely (admittedly partial) explanation of Grijalva’s political success is his strong support from Veteran’s Groups. His record on veteran’s issues is indeed very commendable; he’s filed and/or supported many bills on behalf of Veterans over the years, including the popular REVAMP Act, a bill designed to repair crumbling Veteran’s facilities. Certainly, focusing constituent services on veteran’s assistance is a praiseworthy trait. Alas, “one-issue” voters do not a Republic make, and Grijalva’s attention to this issue can’t conceal his far left-of-center beliefs on other issues.

    Enter Blanca Guerra, Arizona co-leader of Café Con Leche Republicans. She’s pro-immigration reform, but doesn’t embrace Rep. Grijalva’s economic extremism”
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Wow. Just WOW. That’s a novel tactic. Everybody’s a racist … except the ‘moderate’ and very ironically named Blanca Guerra who seems by this jaw-dropping prose, to be pitching herself on blatently racist grounds of what in Africa is known as ‘Cafe au Lait.’

    She usually vote Republican, or is a Democrat who miraculously became GOP just now for this er… political …race?

    She’s cuter than Raul,and she’s glued on that coveted magic (R) so vote for her so she can better push his agenda? That’s the essence of her campaign platform, isn’t it?

  22. Oh, howdy!

    Been busy with this and that.

    But, the stench of burned coffee and sour milk was so strong it managed to waft all the way to … what New Orleans Democrat Mayor Nagin was in the habit of describing … the ‘chocolate’ continent. I wouldn’t, but Democrats don’t put an edit function on their mouths. But, oddly enough, Nagin’s favorite choice of adjective is in keeping with the theme of this very very very peculiar campaign pitch.

    Have ya’ll been pawned? I mean BLANCA GUERRA means WHITE WAR.

Speak Your Mind

*