To What End?

Is it really worth it to win the battle but lose the war? I fear that for both sides of the internecine battle going on right now that is likely becoming the case. The loser? The Republican Party. Now, I am sure that this post will bring with it many comments from both sides pointing the finger at the other. So be it. But at what point do we all go too far and risk Republican majorities in the Legislature, greatly hamper the ability of our candidates to win back the two Congressional seats we lost last year and irreparably damage the party for years to come?

I have good friends on both sides of this battle and I understand and think there is merit in both sides’ arguments against the other side. I, for one, am not taking a side in this battle. Too many on both sides have adopted a “you’re either with us or against us” stance that I think is proving incredibly detrimental to everyone.

You may not like who is Chairman of the State Party. You may not like the apparent heavy handedness of the so-called McCainites. You might think the State Party is too conservative. You might think the Chamber of Commerce is too soft on illegal immigration. But whether you like it or not, we need all sides to buy in to the idea that we all need to work together to win in 2008. Intramural battles are interesting and I would argue good for the party when we are all fat and happy with big majorities in the Legislature, a lock on the Congressional delegation, and control of statewide offices, but they are a luxury we cannot afford in our present position.

We need to face some uncomfortable facts here. We are four seats away from losing the majority in the State House, three seats in the Senate. We face significant uphill, though winnable, battles to get AZ-05 and AZ-08 back. We don’t have control of the Governor or the AG offices. If you gauge a party’s success on winning races, then we haven’t had a good run of things over the last five years. Yet we continue to fight viciously with each other.

Now, I know, each side is going to want to say it’s the other sides fault. And, as I said earlier in this post each side is going to want to point the finger at the other. I understand that this is natural reaction, but maybe right now, not the right one. Because if we do that, this fighting won’t stop.

If you don’t believe that this kind of fighting is devastating to a state party, look directly west to our neighbors in California. Republicans, with the exception of a once in a lifetime candidate in Schwarzenegger, control basically nothing in California. There are many arguments to be made as to why that is the case, but I think one valid reason is the infighting that took place within the California Republican Party during the nineties. Each side felt the other side was responsible for the problems they had and each side, not matter who was in control, was quick to lay blame on the other side. Each side took the attitude that if the other side wasn’t going to do what they wanted, they were going to take their toys and go home. The chaos that ensued only hurt Republicans.

Like many conflicts globally, I fear the war going on right now within the Party is being driven by hardliners on both sides who believe that winning this battle is so important that they are willing to sacrifice the institution that is the Arizona Republican Party to do it. If this continues, one side very well may win. But it will take years and leave us with a Party that is weak and nothing more than a shell of it’s former self. I, for one, don’t want to see that happen.

Now some on both sides will say that I am being alarmist, and for the sake of Republicans in Arizona, I dearly hope that I am. But are we really willing to fight this battle to find out?

Before it’s too late, I implore both sides to lay down their weapons and come to an unconditional cease fire if only for the sake of all of the good candidates in our Party who are putting their lives on hold and sacrificing so much to run as Republicans in our state. Because, if we don’t, I fear that 2008 will not be a good year for Republicans in Arizona.

I have always felt the boiler plate calls for uniting the Party were somewhat trite and had very little meaning behind them. They have been co-opted by both sides who really mean that they want the other side to put aside their very strongly held beliefs on political issues and agree with them. That’s not what I am calling for here.

What I am saying is that we need to unite as Republican officeholders, activists,, candidates, and political operatives, behind the greater good that is a strong and vibrant Republican Party in Arizona as an institution. Let’s unite behind the common ground of winning races for Republicans.

I recognize that this is easier said than done. It won’t be easy. There are a lot of hard feelings on both sides that will be tough to overcome. But, if only because there is so much at stake this election cycle, we need to do it.

It’s time for Republican leaders, whether they are members of the Congressional delegation, respected activists on both sides, or financial backers, to have the courage and wisdom to step up and help end this battle.

I hope this serves as a clarion call to all sides in this battle that it’s time to stop. Look within and ask yourselves to what end are we doing this. If we don’t, we will all be losers. One side may win this battle, but we will all lose the war.


Comments

  1. Joe Cates says

    Is this is what it all boils down to?
    Just winning races for Republicans?
    Just voting for someone who has an “R” by their name.
    I became a Republican for ideas and purposes beyond that.
    Sorry no sale with me.
    Senator Kyl lied and everyone who abets his lie has no honor.
    In 2006 Senator Kyl campaigned on the promise of no support for amnesty under any name.
    Today he ACTIVELY pushes for the amnesty of illegal immigrants.

  2. Wow, you get credit for spending a lot of time on that post and you probably feel better for writing it, but I’m not sure that it really makes a difference. Sure, getting along and winning sounds great to everyone, but only if the end result is moving the ball forward, ideologically speaking. The problem is that everyone has a different idea of which direction is forward!

    For a great read, check out Stephen Moore’s latest article on Virginia and the GOP there. There are valuable lessons in it for the GOP here in Arizona.

    http://opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110010252

  3. Tim,

    I agree there are lessons to be learned from Moore’s article. Like this one taken directly from the article.

    “Given the bitterness of this intra-party feud, don’t be surprised if Virginia elects a Democratic Legislature in November. If that happens, Republican presidential hopefuls better watch out. This is a must-win state if they are to have any chance of keeping Hillary Clinton out of the White House.”

  4. Lest you cherry pick the quotes you prefer, and leave readers with an inaccurate picture of the article’s conclusions, here are some additional quotes for folks:

    “Richmond Republicans are now in the midst of an identity crisis, not unlike the one suffered by their comrades in D.C. And unless conservative primary voters steer the GOP back to its principles, it’s only a matter of time before voters in the general election do it for them.”

    “But the real political unknown is whether liberal Republicans will come to understand that in order to hold onto power it’s time for them to start helping conservative Republicans win general election races. The ranks of the liberals are shrinking, but they still exert outsized power because big business, developers and government contractors–consumers of government largesse–prefer tax-hikers. Local business political-action committees actively work against Republican candidates who pledge “no new taxes.”

    And there are many more. Its worth the read!

  5. Tim,

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not condoning what the other side is doing. I was just pointing out one of the consequences. In any event, I don’t think the post is about intra-party primaries – a good thing. It’s about the effects of intra-party fights over the Party itself.

    Chip

  6. Gotcha! Thanks…

  7. judeinaz says

    SA,

    Thank you for your well thoughtout and cautionary message to all of us.

    It will serve us all well to listen and work to better the Party as a whole.

    Thank you,

    Judy Connell

  8. SA, Great post and well thought out.

    Tim, you nailed it with this quote from Moore:

    “But the real political unknown is whether liberal Republicans will come to understand that in order to hold onto power it’s time for them to start helping conservative Republicans win general election races.” This is the problem.

    When Salmon became the party chair in 2005, he went to all the legislative districts telling conservatives they “have to support moderates.” This from the man who lost because so-called “moderates” abandoned him for Napolitano!

    The same thing is happening now with Randy Pullen. So-called “moderates” like Hallman call him dumb and a divider, which only helps Democrats.

    I would vote for Hallman over any Democrat, and he needs to do the same.

    We need to make the case to “moderates” that they need to support conservatives.

  9. SA,

    Very well said and beyond that, necessary. I perceive not two factions but three…the hard right/anti-McCains, the perceived McCainites, and the rest of us who do not belong to either camp but are ordered to belong to one or the other by the need to departmentalize and sort all members. Frustration beyond measure! Such has been my bastion of positioning, not an anti-McCain but not necessarily a McCain lover; not a round them all up and ship them back but not an amnesty kind of gal either. Where do I fit? I hope in the Republican Party, the big tent, the Grand Old Party. I was once considered a very conservative person, now I risk the term RINO with some of my views. They have not changed the shift in temperament left me in the more center of the right category.

    Tim S,
    The following excerpt caught my attention:
    1.“But the real political unknown is whether liberal Republicans will come to understand that in order to hold onto power it’s time for them to start helping conservative Republicans win general election races. The ranks of the liberals are shrinking, but they still exert outsized power because big business, developers and government contractors–consumers of government largesse–prefer tax-hikers. Local business political-action committees actively work against Republican candidates who pledge “no new taxes.”

    But how can the “liberal” Republican help the conservative when the bridge between them is so wide and the divide so treacherous as to be beyond crossing. To shut out those who do not fit the specific template of conservative Republican is to disallow such cooperation. That is where we are going if we do not accept the differences in our perceptions is what makes us so strong and weakness is only had if we isolate and demean those with whom we should reach out to in order to increase our territory.

  10. The post seems sensible if taken at face value without any history attached.

    I do not know of a conservative, pro-life, anti-amnesty, Party Platform Republican who has endorsed or worked for a Democrat because the Republican candidate was liberal, pro-choice, pro-amnesty big government advocate.

    I wish I could say the same in reverse, but we all know that would be either done out of a lack of knowledge or a lie.

    The federal elected officials have come to take for granted that the conservatives will salute and vote Republican while they worry about the moderates/liberals. Therefore they continue to prech Unity to the conservatives. Appeasement to the pro-choice, big government, pro-amnesty, pro-social service positions has been the result.

    Let me demonstrate with some reality over the last ten years. In 1998, we lost the AG race to JN because the Kaites supporters were upset they lost the Primary and refused to support the Republican candidate. Without that, Janet would have never gotten her hands on an elected office in this state to use as a springboard to the Governor’s office.

    In 2002, the Bayless/Springer moderate pro-choice, pro-big government liberals ditched Mat Salmon in the general and worked against Andy Thomas – even refusing to allow him on the Unity Tour plane at the insistence of McCain – therefore giving both the Governor and Attorney General offices to the D’s.

    In this last cycle, the pro-choice, pro-amnesty, pro-big government, pro-social services liberal Republicans were the deciding difference in defeating Quelland, Chase, Melvin, Knaperak, Jorgensen, Jones, Crutcher, Hesselbrock, DeSpain, Rosevear and Melchionne. Want to look at why we are at risk and do not have even a operational majority due to the refusal of Allen, O’Halleran, Burns, McClure, Mason and Hershberger to vote with the caucus.

    Going back to the Unity plea, under what banner would you suggest we should unite? The pro-choice, pro-amnesty, pro-big government, anti-second amendment banner?

    Wait, I have a possible solution. How about we act as other organizations do. We join churches whose beliefs are in alignment with ours. If we do not agree with a particular church’s theology, we do not attend there and demand that they change for us. Secular organizations have by-laws or underlying reason for existence and people who are unalterably opposed to those beliefs do not join and demand that the organization change.

    The Republican Party has a Platform for a reason – it is supposed to encompass the beliefs of people who call themselves Republican. Now there is some latitude for disagreement, but if you are going to be an elected official – a PC, State Committeeman – you should at least publicly support that 91 page document and not work against other Republicans or you should have the integrity to resign your leadership role.

    In addition, you do not see Democrat elected officials go on national TV and ridicule their Party Platform like John McCain has done on numerous occasions.

    A case in point – it was a harsh Primary in LD8 last year – too harsh on both sides. However, the conservatives did not work for the Democrat against Allen. If Rosati had won, I personally heard liberal Republican Party LD8 District Officers state that they would have worked for the Democrat opponent.

    Sonoran Alliance, again, Unity is a worthy goal, but if there is a consistent track record of only one side openly endorsing and working for Democrats against Republicans, it is time for all to call it like it is. They are RINOS.

  11. One more case in point – look at the story posted just before this one. How many conservative Republicans in Arizona have changed Party Registration to Democrat because they felt they could not win the Republican Primary? I’ll wait patiently for the list.

  12. How about unifying the party around the party platform? That sounds like a good start.

  13. I think that is wonderful. Perhaps a little idealistic knowing recent history but a goal worth striving for. It is a document that has been largely unchanged for two generations and has been instrumental in the Party’s biggest victories nationally and statewide.

  14. Ironically, often the platform is no where near the root of the debate or divide, particularly locally. Consider the discussions of late on this site; I am a pro-life, fiscal-conservative yet because I have made my personal preferences and perspectives have been labeled as a part of a sub-group within the party. The connotation of that sub-group is to be out of line with the platform, associated with those whose names are used pejoratively. Very broad strokes paint the canvas with a singular color that may not be the true color of the image being replicated. Please know, this is not to stir that debate but to use it as an example of the divide that is so deep and continues to be held onto as a means of identity.

    As to platform, is it the whole platform or only parts of it that count? Can you be a pro-life, gun toting, free-speech loving, non-school voucher believer and still maintain your party pedigree? Or, if you feel some gun control is a good thing, is your membership card revoked? If so, we are in big trouble at the presidential level because the platform is not represented at all to such a degree.

    My point being, the platform may be made of planks that do not meet a one size fits all but it is a much closer fit than the planks of the other side. And if I do not want to be a part of the Independents who carry their ideas in a loosely woven basket, allowed to be tossed around without regard to the integrity, am I not welcome?

    A platform is never reached by a unanimous vote but rather out of consensus. Do all who are part of the process agree 100% with every word and phrase? Probably not, so why should those who choose to identify with the majority of the party belief system not be as entitled?

    The very premise of unity is to establish majority as much as possible. The use of random anecdotal accounts of Dems winning do nothing but further divide and separate us. Past bad practices do not excuse future mistakes.

    Now, I would have a very hard time voting for Rudy Giuliani, yet he is an “R”. He is pretty far left social issues but given the choice of him or Hillary, or worse yet Edwards… it’s a no-brainer! A real lib or a sometimes lib….I’ll take Rudy!

  15. Ann,

    We may disagree, we may even strongly disagree, but there is only one part of the Party that goes out and endorses/works for Democrats in contested general elections and it is those who are out of step with the major planks of our platform – pro-life, small government, personal liberty, the Constitution including the second amendment, parental choice in education.

    You do not have to agree with all of the planks of the Platform, just as many people do not agree with all the traffic laws, but until you have the ability to change the rules, as elected leaders in your precinct/legislative district, you should support those who are candidates for your party.

    We might not agree 100%, but it is never OK as a Republican elected official to work against a Republican candidate in the general. That goes to the original plea for Unity – the mantra of our former Chairman who was unified only with the Congressional Delegation and the Chamber/ Central Avenue R’s so he could make his mid-six figures as a lobbyist while supposedly leading the grass roots Republicans.

    Even if you had trouble voting for “G”, it is totally inappropriate to endorse or actively work for the Democrat. If it was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, gun control activist “G” against former Governor Casey from PA, it would be tough for me not to vote for Casey, but it would be wrong to publicly do anything to help him.

  16. GOP PK,

    I absolutely agree, which is why I have such a hard time with the labeling and name calling of those within our party. Do I support the opposing R candidate in the primary against an incumbent for whom I have no respect or admiration or do I smear him and try to discredit him at every turn during his term. Use his name as a negative reference and anyone I dislike I label one of “those” types? Does it not reflect poorly on our party as a whole and smack of egocentricity to believe an individual right is so important as to supersede the needs of the party for which they profess loyalty and may hold a leadership position?

    If I am not as enamored of a plank or two but am a stalwart supporter of all else; am I not as worthy of the label Republican as the guy who also disagrees with a plank or two but my planks strike a different nerve? Or they are not the up front and personal issues that the loudest group, if not the largest, agree upon?

    I have a hard time understanding some of the double standards. The ability to forgive and forget does seem to be selective. I would love to ask you some very specific questions, but that would be seen as divisive and maybe rightfully so, therefore I will not go down that road. But I would ask if an examination of past practice in name calling, labeling, and factious actions within the party itself is more detrimental to the party than the random support of a Dem? And what of someone who has done both, supported a Dem in the general and been among the name callers, or maybe donated to a liberal cause or candidate? Is it justified if the circumstance is the right one and the right issue? Or is it dependant on the person, and the crowd they are aligned with?

    I think not. But, that is not the conventional practice of our party today. There is no aspersion meant in the above paragraph but an example of the reality of our situation. The duality of right and wrong is more dangerous to our party than any liberal candidate or cause.

  17. Those folks who feel maligned because they are lumped in with this group or that group often aren’t lumped in with any group. A lot of the time, these posts are written about Group A or Group B and those reading the posts place themselves into those groups, THEN get insulted. It would serve folks well to remember that it is not always about you…

  18. Except for Ann. It really IS about her! That is what led us to create the Blame Ann First Caucus…

    BTW Ann, I had to add the S. to my name ’cause some other guy showed up calling himself Tim. So don’t get us confused!

  19. Ann, Ann, Ann

    I think you do not understand the difference between core values and egocentricity.

    I am sure that the Tories used some of the same terms you use to explain Adams, Jefferson, Revere, and especially Hancock, that self-centered guy who had to have his signature bigger than anyone else.

    Let me quote the leader in the rebirth of our Party almost fifty years ago. “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

    Right now, 91% of the Republicans in this state are opposed to the CRAP McCain/Kennedy Bill. The senior senator from this state finds it “regrettable” that SCOTUS rules that the RTL in Wisconsin should have been allowed to educate the public on a vital issue re: Sen. Herb Kohl. His minions bankroll an operation with Democrat money in an effort to take out a Republican District Chair. They also bankroll the intentional public attacks on the Party Chairman and state without equivocation that they hope the Party goes bankrupt and achieves total failure. And there is so much more.

    These egocentric actions are what damage the Party to the Independents and less active Republicans. The outsider looking at an organization usually knows what the organization says its core values are and when those core values are routinely violated by the elected leaders of the organization with impunity, the outsider automatically discounts the value of the organization.

    There are Pro-Choice people who believe in all of the other planks of the Platform, and that can be OK. It is not OK to form a WISH organization, call it Republican, have the officers endorse Janet and expect that all of the rest of the Republican Party will think that is acceptable.

    It is at that point that they become RINOS, because they are registered Republican in order to be affiliated with the majority Party while actually working to undermine the Party. It is those actions that bring out the vicious and retaliatory language and that includes those that support that type of activity with their money or their time.

    Then others are offended by the rhetoric. Go figure. To go to your other point, random support by a Republican is their right, but not by an elected PC, SC, or other Party leader. At that point, you should decide whether the overall good is best accomplished as a Republican Party Officer or as a Republican who wishes to work publicly against Republican candidates or established Party Policies.

  20. I’m at a distinct disadvantage because it just doesn’t ring well to write use GOP PK, GOP PK, GOP PK as my salutation. And Tim S., I am so honored to be such an inspiration!

    Boys,
    How’s that for a start… anyway, I do understand the difference between core values and egocentricity. As a matter of fact, Tim made it very clear in his post; some people can’t seem to believe it isn’t about them. Such is the case when the right is might viewpoint is not a reflection of an absolute belief in an issue but in the ownership of the issue. Then any contrary viewpoint is seen as a personal attack and not a reflection of another’s perspective from which personal growth just might be possible.

  21. nightcrawler says

    GOP PK,

    I don’t know where to start to address your insufferable babble.

    Let us begin with your argument on post cheap labor cost stabilization. Specifically, the McDonald’s example. The cost of the hamburger is not just the labor cost of the burger flipper, cashier and janitor at the restaurant. There is a labor cost of the lettuce, meat, bun, sauce, bag, napkins, warehouse and distribution systems. Margins in retail are razor thin.

    How do figure your tax bill would go down 30% ? If anything, it will go up as millions of people who will suddenly find themselves out of work will swarm the system. Don’t be naïve in thinking there will be a dash back across the border. It is better to be poor in this country than in Mexico. Think about it.

    I do agree we need to enforce our current laws and secure the border. That is a no brainer.

    As far as your comment about inaccurate or misleading information, you are a blue ribbon winner. Many of the people who enjoy and post on SA are quite active and actually know the real truth, not the half-truths you spew like a broken sprinkler.

    Finally, I don’t take sides on this site and find merit in all points of view. Sometimes, I agree with Ann, sometimes not. You can not box the Nightcrawler.

  22. Ann,

    Your post #9 is dead on. There are probably three factions. Unfortunately for most of us two of them being the very far left of the party and very far right of the party which comprise about a total of 10% of the party but whose people are the most committed to this intra-party battle and are willing to do anything, including splitting the party right in half to accomplish there goals. I, for one, won’t vote for a so-called liberal Republican in a primary, but I am not willing to destroy the party to purge them out. The price is simply too high. I guess, for me, its a question of priorities. I don’t like Republicans who endorse Democrats. I wish they would change their registrations, but I am not willing to go to all out war to get rid of them. It’s simply not worth it with so much else at stake. Unfortunately for 10% on each fringe of the party, it’s the only thing they seem to be willing to fight for right now and we are letting them split the party apart. I lay blame on both sides.

  23. nightcrawler says

    I do agree with Chip and GOP PK. You cannot be a PC, SC, LD Officer and/or Party leader and openly support a Democrat. Each of the people in those positions increasingly share the responsibility to speak for the folks who elected them. To do anything else is a self indulgent betrayal. This is the Republican Party not a political club.

  24. Define support…..is it a name on a list or dollars in the bank? If money buys name recognition is it more of an indulgence to offer financial support rather than an open endorsement? Or is that behind the scenes and does not reflect poorly on the GOP until opensecrets.org (how ironic) displays full accountability? Does it matter if it is in a primary or the general? These are very necessary questions and be careful of the answer.

    What is the statute of limitations on such actions?

    We have gone ’round and ’round over this; continue if you must, but what people do…even what I spoke of above, is their prerogative. It is ours to accept them as leaders or not. If some see them as admirable and on the balance scale of good and evil, if certain deeds outweigh the bad,… well, if in your mind that is OK… so be it. But please be as gracious in your acceptance of others. Look at what makes us similar, isn’t that what a “party” is about? The differences have always been there, Reagan didn’t makeup all that “big tent” “11th amendment” stuff just because he thought it sounded cool!

    It is our party, our conservative core that is at stake. Again, it is the ownership of one’s values as superior to that of another that is the crux of this issue. Get over yourselves or you can bet the Dems will prove us irrelevant.

  25. nightcrawler says

    I define it as a name on a list. An open endorsement made in public that can influence others to act accordingly. Certainly there are no thought police. People can believe what they will. Some Republicans in the voting booth may even vote for a Dem while away from prying eyes. Likewise donations can be made for a whole host of reasons, business or personal. My point that an elected Republican (from PC on up) cannot and should not publicly in print, on radio, TV and/or the internet endorse a non-Republican. A list of Republicans for “so and so” is a slap in the face to all of those who walk the streets, recruit PCs and otherwise contribute their time and treasure to an endeavor greater than their own fleeting fancy.

  26. Agreed. However, I still have a hard time with the monetary donation to a Dem in the general. But, as long as the same rules apply to all, and selective allowance of some to act as free agents but not others is taboo, I can live with it. The important thing is to not allow divisiveness to be what defines us but the unity on issues and the goal of conservative leadership.

    I have no doubt the crossover vote is a sure thing to happen. That is why we have secret ballots…but beware that may go away soon, too. Especially if the unions (and Dems) are involved!

  27. nightcrawler Post 21

    First of all, I think that you have just broken Ann’s admonition by calling my responses insufferable babble. But we’ll let her call you on that one.

    Let’s try to keep this in perspective. Over thirty percent of our state general fund is spent for education, health care and penal costs of illegal aliens. That does not take into account the direct costs to citizens who are the victims of additional crime, which the City of Phoenix states that 80% of all new crime since 2000 is directly attributable to illegal aliens. How much does that raise the auto, homeowner and other insurance rates not even counting the deductibles and not reported.

    Now lets look at some of outrageous projected cost increases by the amnesty folks. [I do not agree that the actual costs will rise this much, but lets take their figures for fun.]

    We have determined that the farmer gets six cents per head of lettuce to cover land, machinery, materials, and profit (which is only 1/20th of the retail cost for a head of lettuce in Safeway) and if we double his labor costs for harvesting it would raise that cost to nine cents. You can get ten sandwiches per head of lettuce so your cost goes up three tenths of one cent. If we do the same calculations on the other produce items, it would add approx. two more cents assuming an increase of 50% in harvesting labor costs.

    Most of the other items you mention have not been suggested by even the amnesty people to be impacted as highly percentage wise as the farm labor costs. So you see, the whole argument is spun by professionals to scare people with no foundation in fact.

    As to the tax reductions, we, again, have historical evidence that your allegations are fallacious. When you secure the border, require employers to verify legal status through the Basic Pilot Program, enforce the laws by not allowing illegals to receive social services, food stamps, AFDC, etc. etc. you lower the number of people applying for those benefits.

    In addition, the legal residents who are able bodied and receiving government benefits will be able to get a better paying job and become taxpayers, not tax users. Also, if your theory of increased wages occurs, the tax receipts will increase because of the increased pay and all of the people on payrolls will actually be paying their taxes. What a concept.

    Do not forget that over three billion dollars of the current state of arizona budget goes to illegals in only three budget areas – and that does not include the amount the federal government gives away.

    I appreciate your input, but I do not believe you are aware of both the micro and macro economics of the drain on the citizens of this state.

    PS: When Jack in the Box raised the cost of the Jumbo Jack last year, they raised it thirty cents each. That is a whole lot of profit margin and that was with the illegal alien cheap labot at its best – or worst.

Leave a Reply