Policing the Blogosphere – UPDATED

UPDATE:  Mr. Quinlan has taken the time to write a lengthy defense of his actions and as part of it, he makes the point that the letter from the State GOP that he took offense to was not the mailer that we wrote about, but a later mailer whose cost he set at 95 cents per piece.  Wanting to be as accurate as possible, we contacted the State Party and sure enough, there was a later mailing, although they recalled the price being less “per piece”.  We’re not going to quibble over price with Quinlan and we’ll simply accept his estimate.  The report he was complaining about turns out to be the State Party Chairman’s report to the State GOP Executive Committee members.  Now that a businessman is running the party, it is being run much more like a business, and the Chairman has reported to his “board of directors” as would be expected.  Since the Arizona GOP enjoyed relative success in the 2008 cycle, the report also contains some good news for its readers.  We don’t find that objectionable so much as accurate but again, will concede to Quinlan his opinion as to the mailer being some sort of needless brag sheet.

Our original post makes the point that what is wrong with Quinlan’s post is the way he slips in an attack on a candidate he opposes into a piece on a different matter entirely.  He writes of legislation that attempts to shut down the abuse of taxpayers’ funds to the tune of millions of dollars, then goes sideways to imply that Randy Pullen is guilty of the same ugly behavior, all without disclosing his own agenda.  Quinlan’s defense does NOTHING to counter this charge.  In fact, it confirms it.  Quinlan equates a 95 cent (his price) report sent to 114 people with the waste of millions of dollars.  Quinlan would have you believe that a $100 expenditure is an abuse of office by Pullen, although it clearly is not and one would assume that Pullen’s own personal contributions to the State Party have far exceeded $100 in any case.  Every night we see Terry Goddard on TV warning us about digital television scams and Quinlan wants us to think of Randy Pullen spending $100 to communicate to the Executive Board of the party he leads.  In fact, not all of the Executive Committee are State Committeemen who can even vote for Pullen, but Quinlan wants us to believe that Pullen is guilty of unethical behavior and that he sent this mailer so that he could covertly campaign for re-election at no personal expense to himself.  The attack is false (bad) and the manner in which it is delivered is disingenuous at best (worse).

Quinlan also objects to the use of pseudonyms by authors on this blog.  He considers it cowardice, but it is not.  Quinlan maintains that his clients don’t care if he goes on record attacking the State Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party and, perhaps they don’t.  Perhaps his words will not impact his effectiveness on his clients’ behalf.  That is a decision for he and his clients to make.  But many of the authors on this site do not likely enjoy the same liberty.  Many of the posts you read contain informative or provocative thoughts that are only possible because their authors can safely author them.  It is no accident that Sonoran Alliance is read by so many people.  The quality of the work found here, along with the “scoops” that frequently appear (also made possible by anonymity) make SA a good read just about every day of the year.

======================

ORIGINAL POST:  Blogs have gained national prominence for their ability to scoop the national press, or even make news from the mainstream media’s errors or fabrications — who can forget Rathergate? But blogs also play a similarly vital role:  Correcting other blogs.  Every blog makes errors and the more authors and posts, the more likely that errors will be made. Certainly Sonoran Alliance has made its share.  But innocent errors are different from undisclosed bias or hypocrisy.  This is a conservative, pro-life blog, and it says so, plainly. As such, readers know what they are getting before they read a single post.  It is unfortunate that other blogs do not disclose their bias in such plain language.

I was reminded of this while reading the blog of Farrell Quinlan, a Phoenix-based lobbyist and consultant. Quinlan has been associated with a number of conservative causes, but Legislative District 20’s new chairman also has an extremely hardline position in favor of “comprehensive immigration reform” and he is a consistent advocate for businesses being able to hire illegal aliens, essentially without consequences.  But you won’t find that on his blog.  You have to take it upon yourself to look at his client list, find his donations to open-border candidates, etc.  Which is a shame, because the average reader who reads his blog posts won’t have that information, so they won’t know the slant that comes with his writings.

Take for instance this post.  In it, Quinlan praises Sen. Jim Waring for trying to crack down on elected public officials who use taxpayer dollars to fund communications to the public that do more to promote themselves than anything else.  Think Janet Napolitano on Arizona Department of Tourism signs or Attorney General Terry Goddard talking about our television sets going digital.  Then Quinlan sticks the knife into State GOP Chairman Randy Pullen, insinuating that Pullen is guilty of the same dirty deed.  Quinlan takes issue with a letter that the State Party sent to the newly elected State Committeemen.  The letter, which was signed by Pullen, contains a congratulatory salutation, alerts the Committeemen to the impending arrival of their official call, then provides them with a whole host of useful information about the event, including its previously undisclosed location and start time.  It also contains information about the awards dinner that will be held the night before the meeting, as well as information about special lodging arrangements for those who are interested in staying overnight.  This is particularly helpful for State Committeemen coming in from outside of Maricopa County.  The sooner you can know where the block of rooms are reserved, the sooner you can book your own room.

None of that matters to Quinlan, who takes issue with a paragraph that appears below all of that.  In it, the State Party mentions its successes in 2008 and warns that the Democrats will be working even harder for 2010, so Republicans will need to be ready too.  Actually, its pretty standard, boilerplate, “rah rah” kind of stuff.  “Thank you for your service” and all that.  But its signed by Randy Pullen, the State Party Chairman who also is running for re-election, so Quinlan cries foul.  In his words, Pullen is using “official party communications with GOP state committeemen to push his accomplishments ahead of the January 24th election of the next state GOP chairman. In that race, Pullen is running for re-election in a rematch with Lisa James who Pullen bested by a slim 4-vote margin in 2006. Regardless of Pullen’s case for a second term, it’s a risky strategy to play so loose with his “franking” privileges with an electorate that is so proud of its conservative credentials. I guess we’ll see on January 24th how ideologically consistent these state committeemen are.”

Quinlan’s complaint is clever to a casual reader, but altogether self-serving to those who recognize his political agenda, and that of his paying clients.  We can’t be sure who Quinlan would have sign the letter, if not the State Party Chairman.  After all, it comes from the State Party.  Several other state offices will be filled at the same meeting, so it is possible that none of the State Party officers would be allowed to sign any letter to State Committeemen that contained any language that might be considered upbeat or positive about the Party, its accomplishments, or its future.  And the staff must be considered similarly conflicted out of signing their name because they work for these same people. Then we get to Quinlan’s close, where he warns that committeemen who consider themselves conservative would be hypocrites to support Pullen, in light of this “franking” scandal.

The real issue is that Quinlan opposes Pullen’s re-election and is trying to hurt his campaign.  He does so by tying altogether normal and ethical behavior by Pullen to a story about genuine “Abuses” of privilege.  He makes them equal, then has the nerve to call out conservatives and to put them on notice that their “ideological consistency” will be measured based on their votes at the State Convention.  To be considered ideologically consistent, they must vote against Pullen, because he used his official position to say good things about the party he led.  That is the Quinlan Standard for abusing one’s leadership position.  Burying an election message into official party communication, thereby abusing one’s position.

Think what you will of Mr. Quinlan’s ideology and tactics.  We haven’t gotten to the best part yet!

As we mentioned before, Quinlan is the new chairman of LD20.  So Precinct Committeemen in LD20 were not surprised to receive an email from Quinlan that contained details about the upcoming COUNTY meeting, including the agenda and a blank proxy.  Standard stuff really, the kind of thing every chairman sends their PCs.  Only Quinlan’s email didn’t stop there.  Quinlan took it upon himself to also send along a letter from his favored candidate for County Chairman, Jerry Brooks, as well as information about Brooks’ slate of candidates for County GOP officers.  Quinlan went so far in his endorsement of certain members of the slate (who were also from LD20) as to call it “essential” that all PCs vote for them, and he urged that his PCs support the entire Brooks slate.  Quinlan offered no information about their competition, nor did he make any effort to provide balanced or unbiased coverage of the race.  In fact, Quinlan failed to even acknowledge the existence of other candidates. In short, Quinlan used his party position and his official communication to openly lobby for the election of his preferred candidates while failing to provide even a minimal or token amount of information about their opponents.

Ironically, both Quinlan’s post about abusing one’s positon and the email he himself sent out, were both distributed on the same day, suggesting either an utter lack of shame or a startling amount of gall.  In either case, Quinlan exposes himself to anyone and everyone paying enough attention to put the facts together, and it is job of the self-policing blogosphere to piece together the puzzle for those who don’t have the requisite time and/or background.

Sadly, Quinlan is the kind of Republican who, on many issues, is capable of making a very real contribution. But by not coming clean about his goals and agenda like he should, and by posing as a neutral observer who is innocently calling attention to public officials acting unethically, he violates his own declared standards and forfeits the mantle of integrity he needs if he wishes to maintain his credibility, in the blogosphere for certain, if not the world at large.


Comments

  1. Seems he could have put a disclaimer on the post that says “In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a support of Pullen’s opponent and I strongly disagree with Pullen’s and the Arizona Republican Party’s position on employer sanctions.” That would have made his effort a lot more honest.

  2. When I read this post on Sonoran Alliance, I was reminded of the scene from the Bill Murray comedy “Stripes” where members of the platoon were sitting around telling stories about themselves, where they come from.

    Psycho: The name’s Francis Soyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis, and I’ll kill you.
    Leon: Ooooooh.
    Psycho: You just made the list, buddy. And I don’t like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat-hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I’ll kill you. Also, I don’t like nobody touching me. Now, any of you homos touch me, and I’ll kill you.
    Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

    All I could say while reading the post, “Lighten up, STS.”

    Who or what is STS and what did I ever do to him… her… them… ah… whatever? STS must be one of the Sonoran Alliance’s bloggers who doesn’t feel comfortable being “out-of-the-closet” yet (to use SA’s own formulation). All I know is that when someone posts a entry brazenly proclaiming “Policing the Blogosphere” as its title, I’d really appreciate the ability to face my accuser, or at least know them as a real flesh and blood human being. But who am I to judge the judge, right? Let’s put aside STS’s manifest cowardice… er, no… I mean… spunky use of a pseudonym and address some of the indictments in his/her/its 1,264 words of breathless, over-the-top caviling.

    I’ll take them in order…

    Correcting other blogs? Absolutely, but doesn’t everything STS then goes on to write about fall into the “disagreeing with other blogs” category rather than being placed in the correction pile?

    Bias Disclosure? Again fair point for some blogs, but in what way precisely am I hiding my biases on Willet Creek Dam (http://willetcreekdam.blogspot.com)? It’s a personal blog that I use to comment on all manner of topics ranging from books to movie, from sports to politics. I’m confused how I’m false advertising.

    Hardliner on Immigration? This is refreshing. Quinlan has “an extremely hardline position in favor of ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ and he is a consistent advocate for businesses being able to hire illegal aliens, essentially without consequences.” Interesting turn of phrasing. I’ll admit, I don’t wake up at 3 a.m. in a pool of sweat anxious about the Rise of Atzlan and how I’m going to get screwed exchanging my dollars for Ameros from our new North American Union overlords. If that makes me an apostate and not a REAL conservative in the eyes of some, I’ll live with that and be happy. I wholeheartedly support the 2008 Republican Platform plank on immigration (http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/NationalSecurity.htm#Def5) as well as the 2004 Republican Platform plank on immigration (http://www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf). ‘Nuff said.

    My State Political Contributions? No secrets, do a name search here (http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/ContributorSearch.aspx). On the federal level, I gave money to Mitt Romney, John Shadegg, Jeff Flake, David Schweikert, Jim Ogsbury, Laura Knaperak, Mark Anderson, Tim Bee and McCain-Palin.

    My Lobbying Clients? Click here (http://www.azsos.gov/scripts/Lobbyist_Search.dll/ZoomLOB?LOB_ID=3607061).

    Bogus Franking? STS goes to great lengths to defend Randy Pullen’s innocent one-page congratulations letter to state committeemen dated December 23, 2008. If that letter was what had caused me to suggest some abuse of official communications then STS would be correct to criticize me for being unfair to Mr. Pullen. But I wasn’t cheesed off about that mailing. It was bent about the indefensible seven-page “2007-2008 Report” mailed on December 31, 2008 at $0.95 a pop. Now that one really reeks of using Arizona Republican Party resources in a strategically-timed manner to aid in Randy Pullen’s re-election campaign. Since that’s what I was referring to, then much of STS’s hair-trigger defense of Randy Pullen is moot.

    Political Agenda? My “self-serving… political agenda” is just that, self-serving because it’s mine. No mystery here or need for Surgeon General-level consumer warnings to the blogosphere that STS condescends to (“Quinlan’s complaint is clever to a casual reader, but…”). And where is STS’s evidence that my clients give fig about my blog posts? Really? The Arizona Landscape Contractors’ Association has not put me up to liking the movie Dark Knight or my disappointment with the U.S. Mint’s four reverse designs for the 2009 penny. Sometimes there really aren’t wheels within wheels and the world is as straightforward as it presents itself. Can’t I just believe that abusing official communications for campaign purposes is shabby without being a member of the Trilateral Commission or the Illuminati?

    Quinlan Endorsement: Then STS really gets his Castroesque and Kim Jong-il-like cult of personality rant really into high gear making all kinds of assumptions and conclusions about which candidates I am supporting for various party positions. Here’s the deal, I’m a homer. I’m supporting Diane Ortiz-Parsons for Maricopa County Republican 1st Vice Chair and Mike Middleton for Maricopa County Republican 2nd Vice Chair. Why? Because they are LD20 folks and I know they will do a good job. Did I also endorse Jerry Brooks for Maricopa County Republican Chair? Sure. Why? Because Diane and Mike are running on a ticket with him and I trust their recommendation. I wouldn’t know Jerry Brooks or Rob Haney if they waved at me at Wal-mart. All I know is that Jerry is from Chandler and so am I. He’s already sent me two mailings (on his own dime!) asking for my support. I’ve got nothing from Haney and it being a week out, I’ve decided that Brooks is my man. (By the way, the West Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance and the Arizona Contractors Association don’t really care and have released my from my feudal vassalage to make this decision on my own.)

    Pot Calling the Kettle Black: Ah-hah! STS reveals that LD20 GOP Chairman Quinlan e-mailed his PCs with info about the upcoming county meeting and endorsed Brooks, et al… HYPOCRITE!!! Lighten up, Francis. My e-mail was from my personal account and wasn’t an official communication to anyone. The official communication came in the mail from the county party a couple days ago. And it didn”t have a list of candidates in it (only the announcement, resolutions and proxy form). Comrade STS, am I not allowed to communicate with the PCs in my district?

    Finally, STS really begins to show the effects of oxygen deprivation when he concludes with soaring rhetoric about “the kind of Republican” I am and how I’ve “forfeit[ed] the mantle of integrity” and all that. Yikes. STS really has very thin skin about Dear Leader. Or maybe, STS has a hidden, integrity-diminishing agenda against Farrell Quinlan and all his ilk!

    Whatever.

    Blogging should be fun. That’s how I approach it. STS, good luck and be well.

  3. Liberty or Death says

    Quinlan served on the “No on prop.200 committee. I guess he thinks illegals should vote also.

  4. Hypocrisy, thy name is Quinlan.

  5. not gonna say says

    This site has really hit a new low. The double standard and distortions in this post could take all day to point out. It is ridiculous and juvenile.

    I’m posting from a computer with an
    IP address you’ll never trace and using a name and email address you don’t know. Since lying ad nauseum has become the standard here, I can’t risk being the next target if I speak honestly and use info that can be connected. What once was a pretty cool site for people to discuss REAL issues has become the personal playground of bullies who will manipulate the truth to fit their distorted perceptions. Damn all others!

    The relevance of SA has been diminshing for a few months and will certainly continue in its spiral. Shane, pull your head out and get a grip. Your site will never be considered legit again with this sort of ranting labeled as real stuff. Irrelevance is just around the corner.

    Hasta!

  6. Wow. This is a stunning bit of hypocrisy considering the author, like most SA writers is using a pseudonym. Now, I have no problem with authors hiding their identity as this has a long tradition in political writing. At the same time we have no way to determine what bias STS has. For all we know he could be Mr. Pullen himself. I don’t think so, but the point is we don’t know their affiliation. I am sure there are people writing for SA who work for politicians or lobbying firms, yet I don’t see a call for them to state these. At least in the case of Mr. Quinlan, we have an opportunity to search his name and find out who his clients are.

  7. It’s me, the subject of all this faux controversy. I tried posting a response on this site late last night/early this morning and I guess it didn’t pass the censors. If you’d like to read my (overly long) response to this (overly long) SA post, go to http://willetcreekdam.blogspot.com/

    Thanks,

    Farrell Quinlan
    Willet Creek Dam blog

  8. Oops, sorry for the drive-by swipe at the censor. I guess my browser showed me a cached version of the page this morning without the #2 comment showing. Apologies to the SA censor, whoever you are.

    FQ

  9. What about? says

    What about the letter congratulating me on becoming a PC, signed by Randy? That contained no additional information of any value.

    Further, it was sent through the U.S. mail, not an e-mail, and therefore cost money the party doesn’t have, has not had for two years, but will need.

    Another good example of Pullen’s waste as Chairman is the expensive advertisement run for Joe Arpaio. The Sheriff was completely safe, but Randy wanted his support for re-election. Consequently, the state party spent money it didn’t have to protect an incumbent who couldn’t lose.

  10. Sherlock Homie says

    I hope that if Pullen is defeated no one jumps to the conclusion that the moderates have taken over the GOP. I suspect there are plenty of conservatives who are with Pullen ideologically but could vote for someone else because of other reasons. I’m saying Lisa James will have no “moderate” mandate if she’s elected.

    It does not really matter at all whether the state party leaders are conservative or not. Conservative candidates will still win primary elections with their own bootstraps as they’ve always done. And in the general election there are so may independent voters the parties are both becoming a lot less relevant.

    So the real business of state elections is recruiting strong conservatives who already have support in their legislative districts. And you don’t need a party to do that, because they have nothing to offer the candidates, and pretty much can’t in the primary anyway. That’s why the best recruiter is a powerful incumbent speaker like Kirk Adams could be, who has a lot to offer the next round of candidates, especially those who might desire to take out rogue Republicans or vulnerable D’s.

  11. Maricopa PC says

    Let me understand this…not that Farrell Quinlan is the smartest tool in the shed, so there are other reasons to fault him. But is your only reason for picking apart his blog, be that he doen’t support Randy Pullen? I don’t see anywhere on the Sonoran Alliance bloga disclaimer that you and all authors writing for Sonoran Alliance (whomever they may be) 100% without a doubt support Randy Pullen.

    Why does it matter who he supports or does not support? He has just as much right to voice his opionion as you do.

  12. Big Sister says

    Dang, what happened…this guy steal your date to the prom or what? Talk about petty! Write a novel under a secret name, slamming some guy who wrote an opinion on his own site and under his own name, and you basically think he is the slime ball because he doesn’t support Pullen? Double standard doesn’t even come close to describing this joke of a post.

    Do you, or this site, really expect to be taken seriously after this? SA has become the place to go for a good laugh!

  13. As a lobbyist, Quinlan has a lot of balls to 1) be a district chair – that is sure gain him some political enemies, which are not an asset in his buisness 2) he takes a position in the contest for chairman – another way to risk gaining enemies.
    I dont know if those are the best moves for his business interests, but he has a backbone and he deserves to be called a Arizonan.
    Unlike the legions of spineless Mexican hating rednecks that want to crush capitalism and tell businesses who they can hire. Their next move is to change the constitution (the constitution they claim is sacred) so that they can choose who gets citizenship at birth. Maybe they will have some secret tribunal that judges which new births have access to citizenship.
    Then they will tell businesses that it is forbidden to move any jobs overseas, because jobs are for Americans, capitalism be damned.
    Any way, Quinlan should keep it up, Reagan and Goldwater had enemies in their day too.

  14. West Valley Guru says

    Okay Maximus, I’ll agree with you and call Quinlan an Arizonan! I hope that helps.

  15. West Valley Guru says

    But I still don’t get how he can compare a report from Pullen that costs so little and serves a legit purpose with these bogus ads that are nothing more than an excuse to build name id for politicians. Does Quinlin really think that Randy Pullen needs to build name id with his own Executive Committee? They’re simply not the same.

  16. I know you are but what am I?

  17. …that want to crush capitalism and tell businesses who they can hire… Maximus

    You betcha we do. There are immigration and employment laws in this country.

    When I go to work, I still have to obey the law. So should you so quit your snivelling and follow the law or find a different investment.

  18. Salve! Maximus.

    Thank you for your concern about the wisdom of running for and serving as LD20 chairman while also being a professional lobbyist. A good career move? We’ll see. It seemed to work out pretty sweet for Ambassador P. Robert Fannin, a friend from his lobbying days and stint as state party chair.

    Again, my alleged apostasy on all matters immigration seems to infect every point STD (and Maximus) makes against me. The constant drip, drip, drip of that issue burns at the center of every argument. It’s maddening. I guess it’ll be with me for the rest of my life.

    So, in an effort to finally let this scab of a debate heal, I’ve posted (before I read this updated STD post and Maximus’ comments) what I hope is a final blog entry on this matter over at http://willetcreekdam.blogspot.com/.

    I’m out.

    Farrell the Apostate
    [ah, fans of Roman Emperor Julian (A.D. 355-363) thought that appellation was retired, no more!]

  19. That is a really long post, but its actually nice as a change of pace to read something so detailed. Most posts are usually brief, but this one really documents details. Nice work and thanks for taking the time.

  20. I checked out Farrell’s response. Sounds like you guys win this round, but I noticed he took a parting shot that suggests that he doesn’t plan on changing his style anytime soon.

    He writes “Fair enough. I stand by my concern that though arguably “OK” and technically defensible, the recent flurry of mail to state committeemen from the state party extolling Chairman Pullen’s tenure was/is too much and borders on and might actually be an abuse of office. These relentless mailings implicitly seek to “make the case” for his re-election while hiding behind official communications from the party.
    I hated that practice when Rick Romley, on his way out as county attorney and preparing to run for other elective office, published his die-cut hagiography on the taxpayer’s dime.”

    So he concedes the point, but dismisses the difference as techincal, then goes back at the end with equating Pullen’s behavior to those of elected officials operating with taxpayer’s money. And he ignores that he’s making a big deal out of less than $70. Oh well.

  21. Really, my last word on this… I hope.

    “David,” I do not concede the point, $70 or $70,000. I clearly stated in my response to Brett Mecum that I do not agree with his defense of the state party’s communications practices over the last couple of months. But I will concede that his defense is fair and a worthy effort that people of good will could agree with.

    True, Randy Pullen is not a taxpayer-paid elected official and the money he’s spending on these mailings (legitimately or not) is not government money. But you’ve got to grant me the right to draw parallels between the spirit of Sen. Waring’s SB 1002 and the activities of a party official in the midst of a re-election campaign for a party post.

    Does what I dislike about the mailings, their timing and volume, constitute a crime or violation of some law? I don’t make that claim. It’s a judgment call… a leadership call… an indication of Chairman Pullen’s stewardship of GOP donors’ contributions.

    Look, Lisa James can make her case against Randy Pullen however she wants. Randy Pullen can counter and tell us (the state committeemen who will vote on 1/24) why he’s deserves another term. But as a man seeking to lead a party that stands for fiscal responsibility in government, he should avoid any suggestion that he is taking unfair advantage of his access to the AZ GOP’s treasurer for his campaign.

    Does Sen. Waring’s SB 1002 go too far and trample on the 1st Amendment Rights of government officials? Maybe, I’m not making a legal argument in favor of it. Could it be tweaked and improved to ensure that freedom of speech is respected. Sure, that’s why we have committee hearings and debate. My support for a high “wall of separation” between political self-promotion and taxpayer/donor funds is a moral/ethical one.

    Thanks for your constructive comments “David”, I hope everyone who is following this little soap opera on “both” sides can unite in supporting passage of SB 1002. A quick e-mail to Sen. Waring (jwaring@azleg.gov) thanking him for his leadership and to your own lawmakers to urge their support of SB 1002 would be a great outcome of this dust up.

    FQ

  22. “Farrell”, thanks for the response. I guess what is getting lost from the original post, at least as far as I read it, is that there aren’t any good parallels between what Waring is trying to crack down on, and Pullen’s name being on that mailing. Sticking Pullen into the other story seems to smear him and equate him with what the elected officials are doing when the two are quite different. I imagine that chairmen of every group (Fortune 500 down to the Elks Club) sign the official communications that they produce, but they escape your punch. You go from a post about a good bill to stop one thing, then detour to take a cheap shot at Pullen, apparently for spending $70. You claim that it makes no difference whether its $70 or $70,000, but it does make a difference. It makes a difference whether it is taxpayer money or not. It makes a difference whether the person is a public official or not. It makes a difference whether or not the mailing contains an appropriate message to the appropriate folks, or if its just shotgunned out to the general public. From the update, the mailing Pullen sent out went to some people who can’t even vote for him, so the bad motives you attribute to Pullen for mailing it aren’t even supported.

    The post seems to take offense at you using a legit issue as a platform for taking a cheap shot at a guy you don’t like. “Farrell”, I’m sure you’re a good guy and you’re probably just fine on any number of issues, but if you can’t see the difference between the behavior that Waring is trying to crack down on and Pullen communicating to his Executive Board, then there isn’t any point in trying to explain it. I suspect readers of this blog understand the difference just fine. In the meantime, you’re welcome to support a candidate who I assume will NOT communicate with her Executive Board. After all, you would be “ideologically inconsistent” if you voted for a candidate who would then use party money to communicate with her Executive Board.

    I wouldn’t support a chairman who doesn’t communicate with his or her party though. Then again, I don’t get a vote, so it doesn’t matter what I think.

  23. David,

    I wish you did get a vote! You have your head on straight.

  24. Conservative Majority says

    Quinlan represents a bunch of Democrats at small Chambers of Commerce that are bought off by city subsidies. They do not support the free market or less government regulation because they allow the City Council to sit on their board and pay their salaries. Farrell is just “six degree separated” from the Democratic Party…kind of like McCain’s PAC to elect Pro-Napolitano Republican PC’s.

Trackbacks

  1. […] guys over at Sonoran Alliance have a long (over 1200 words!) defense of Randy Pullen from an attack by lobbyist and blogger Farrell Quinlan. They start the post with a […]

  2. […] Sonoran Alliance’s overlong attack on Republican activist Ferrell Quinlan: 1,264 words Quinlan’s loggorheic response on his own blog, Willet Creek Dam: 1,103 words […]

  3. […] it wasn’t necessary for their argument, and despite the chance to correct their mistake, they repeated the allegation about Goddard. This, by the way, is in a post called “Policing the Blogosphere” where they decry the […]

  4. […] I read this post on Sonoran Alliance, I employed to be reminded up of the scene from the Bill Murray comedy “Stripes” where […]

Leave a Reply to todd Cancel reply