Lengthy letter misses the boat; raises questions
Republicans are receiving a five-page, singled-spaced letter from Dist. 18 State Rep. Mark Anderson. announcing the formation of his exploratory congressional campaign in District 5, and seeking donations.
Right out of the chute, Anderson uses his website to take a shot at his legislative seat-mate, Rep. Russell Pearce, citing Le Templar’s blog in the East Valley Tribune:
“He’s (Anderson) considered less ideological and less inflammatory than his two colleagues from legislative District 18, Rep. Russell Pearce and Sen. Karen Johnson.“
Additionally, Anderson provocatively refers to the U.S. mission in Iraq as an “invasion.”
It should be noted that Conservative Republican. Rep. Russell Pearce has also formed a congressional exploratory campaign, mounting a challenge to open border advocate Rep. Jeff Flake.
Anderson, a Republican candidate hyping fiscally conservative policies, would be more credible by frugally limiting his mailing to a page or two. More trash cans than people have the time to spend on something this lengthy and tedious. How many people will actually read five single-spaced typewritten pages to conclusion? During a scan of the letter the word “illegal” jumped out a couple of times. However, it was referring to congressional corruption and misconduct. Anderson is keen on the need to “restore civility,” but not a word about securing America’s border.
Mr. Anderson, was that an oversight? National security is also AWOL on Anderson’s web pages.. Makes one wonder where he would place national sovereignty and citizen safety on his list of priorities?
He writes about Nero fiddling while Rome burned. That imagery could have provided a great segue to a discussion of the border. Instead we got a recitation of out-of-state crooked congressmen.
No one is keen on such slimy slicksters, but what about that sieve-like border, Mr. Anderson?
October 27, 2007 at 4:19 pm
If this guy is a conservative, pigs fly. I’m with Pearce all the way.
October 27, 2007 at 7:45 pm
You said, “Rep. Russell Pearce has also formed a congressional exploratory campaign, mounting a challenge to first-term Democrat, Harry Mitchell.”
Pearce is not challenging Harry Mitchell. They are not even in the same congressional district. Pearce is challenging current Republican Congressman Jeff Flake. Knaperak, Anderson, Schweikert and one other fellow are challengin Mitchell. Pearce and Anderson are not running in the same congressoinal district.
October 28, 2007 at 6:26 am
Mr. Anderson - fiscally conservative???
That is akin to saying that Russell Pearce is pro-open borders.
Mr Anderson has demonstrated in every occasion that he believes that government is the solution to all of society’s problems. He is one of the three biggest spending advocates in the Arizona House of Representatives and backs it up annually with demands for additional spending programs in order to get his support for the budget.
He would be a liberal big spender Republican that would work against our Party Plarform position of a smaller, less intrusive government.
October 28, 2007 at 11:12 am
Whoa, Kyle. You must have misread this. Seeing Red AZ is well aware of the fact that these are different districts. The post clearly states that Pearce is “mounting a challenge to open border advocate Rep. Jeff Flake.” That is CD 6
Anderson’s exploratory campaign is in DC 5 where former county treasurer, David Schweikert is a declared candidate. Schweikert recently resigned his position in order to run against first-term Democrat, Harry Mitchell.
It is also noted in the post that Mark Anderson and Russell Pearce are District 18 legislative seatmates.
October 29, 2007 at 9:24 am
Hey, Seeingredaz. I agree with you on most subjects…I was just pointint out what the post said originally. I applaud you for changing what it said originally, but I reread the original post numerous times, and I quoted it directly in my abovce response. No need to jump down my throat. I know that seeingredaz is well aware of who is running in what districts, but probably just mistyped. Sorry for pointing it out. Sheesh!
October 29, 2007 at 9:40 am
You guys missed the whole point of my letter! I guess I will have to write a longer one next time! The point was that Congress is dysfunctional…that is why we don’t have any results on immigration policy, Iraq, etc. The Congress–under both parties–has been gridlocked with extreme partisanship, pork-barrel spending, and scandals. This is the institution created by the Founders to address the critical national issues and unless it is reformed, nothing works. As to Russell Pearce…he is a good man, a great patriot and a dedicated legislator. He has a different style than I do, but on issues, we are pretty close. I could say more, but if you don’t really know my record of 13 years in the Legislature, go to my website at http://www.letsmakecongressbetter.com and view the successful conservative legislation I have gotten passed.
October 29, 2007 at 10:48 am
Kyle:
Seeing Red AZ did not edit the original post. It is still up as it was first written. We’re glad you often agree with us, but please don’t applaud us for something we did not do. This was a misread on your part, probably due to the mention of Pearce and Anderson being legislative seat-mates in District 18.
Truce?
October 29, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Rep. Anderson:\
We read both your letter and web pages, even linking to your website in the post above. While we agree with your comments about incivility and out-of-control spending, the fact remains that illegal immigration is a problem of monumental proportions, impacting American taxpayers in myriad ways. Education, health care and the criminal justice system are buckling under the strain.
Additionally, in a post 9/11 world, we must have a handle on who is entering our country. You mention the Founders. Having read numerous books about those brave and brilliant men, it is all too clear that they sought to protect and defend the sovereignty of this great nation. Open borders place us all in peril.
For you to term our mission in Iraq as an “invasion,” sounds like a page taken from the DNC playbook.
You write that “changing hostile public perceptions of the United States among Muslims world-wide will enhance America’s security.” In our view, the optimum way to effect a change of public perceptions is for Muslims to stop homicide bombings of innocents world-wide, condemn atrocities committed in the name of Allah, and stop financing and harboring fanatical terrorists.
Surely you recall the cheers from Muslims as the Twin Towers fell on September 11. 2001? Remember the photos of candy being handed out to young Muslim children in celebration of the senseless and horrific deaths of American civilians on that day?
There have been numerous Middle-Easterners apprehended at our borders. Think of the number who were successful in entering this country. The 9/11 terrorists were here on “student” visas–many of which were expired. We need people in Congress who will view these issues as more important than “civility,” Come to think of it, the Founders were not always brimming with civility.
October 29, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Thanks for the thoughtful reply and the opportunity to engage on the issues you raised. I get the impression that because my letter focused on the need to reform Congress that you are assuming that I am not interested in any of the important issues of the day. I guess I would have to write a 24 page letter to address Iraq, immigration, health care, education, Social Security reform, the drug war, etc.
I chose to focus on what seems most important–fixing the Constitutional mechanism for addressing these problems, but I DO have opinions on the other vital issues.
For example, I have voted for every immigration bill sponsored by Russell Pearce because I felt it vitally important to keep the heat on the federal government to do something about the border, and when they still failed to act, I voted for the Employer Sanction bill.
My TOP priority (after reforming Congress) would be to SECURE the BORDER. I don’t believe we can address the issues around the 12-15 million illegals that are here until we secure the border. I would support the technology, manpower and whatever else is necessary to do that. It is an imperative given the costs to society AND the security risk involved in having gang members, possibly terrorists and other unwanted persons coming into the country.
Regarding Iraq, I will have to re-evaluate the use of the word “invasion”. I get the impression that you feel there are better words to describe our efforts there. I have mixed feelings, as many Americans do, as to our presence there. I think we had good intentions to root out terrorists and to protect our nation from possible weapons of mass destruction and Saddam. I think 90% of the country was supportive of the initial “incursion”.
The question is: is our strategy to getting rid of the threat of terrorism working? I am not so sure. I think we need much more thought about how to bring Muslims into the 21st century and into a positive relationship with us…unless we are planning on killing all 1 billion of them. I know Muslims who are kind, generous, and America-loving. I think our strategy needs to include an element of supporting and working with the pro-Western or “moderate” Muslims while we continue to pressure the anti-American ones and hunt down and kill the terrorists. We can’t just lump all Muslims into one big group. It is not fair and it is not smart.
Would you like me to write a book? Or maybe I’ll end it here and see if anyone’s attention span made it this far. Thanks.
October 29, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Rep. Anderson:
Rethinking the use of the incendiary word “invasion” is good. It’s also a positive that you supported all of the immigration bills sponsored by your District 18 legislative seat-mate, Rep. Russell Pearce. The fact that you now say your top priority would be securing the border is a definite plus, as well.
The only question is why, in both your 5-page letter and on your entire congressional exploratory blog site, is there not one word mentioning border security or the impact of illegal immigration on American citizen taxpayers?
Thank you fro reading Seeing Red AZ and taking the time to reply to the original post.
October 30, 2007 at 10:23 pm
“Invasion? ” Tell that to my college-educated, enlisted Marine, nephew. He is a true believer in the mission and the progress being made. Anderson’s comment does a grave indjustice to our military.
October 31, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I believe one important point is being missed. In a chapter of a book praising the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, Anderson and David Caprara admitted that the inspiration for the US Congress’s adoption of Parents’ Day was Sun Myung Moon and his wife. Anderson and Caprara wrote the following: “The establishment of Parents’ Day was the result of a bipartisan, multiracial and interfaith coalition of religious, civic, and elected leaders inspired by your commitment, Reverend Moon, to the ideal of establishing true parent role models.” True parent role models, my foot. Moon is a sexual predator and a deranged megalomaniac. I have the full article about Anderson and Moon on my main blog:http://scoobiedavis.blogspot.com/2007/10/cults-and-power-two-moonies-seeking-us.html
I also have more information on my blog devoted to exposing Moon: http://realsunmyungmoon.blogspot.com/