Retribution? Absolutely!
Congressman Jeff Flake , a fervent proponent of amnesty for illegals, is not about to forget the fact that state Rep. Russell Pearce considered challenging him for his CD 6 seat last fall.
Now we read that Flake’s immigration lawyer brother-in-law has filed papers to run against Pearce for the District 18 senate seat that Pearce is currently considering seeking. It is being vacated by term-limited Sen. Karen Johnson.
This should be interesting to watch. East Valley voters will have a clear option in this race. Rep. Russell Pearce, a proven leader and an American patriot, is the obvious choice.
March 2, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Rep. Russell Pearce is a man who stands up for the citizens of the state of Arizona.
He is a rare elected official who has actual moral courage and will not bow to the political correctness that is overtaking us, to our own detriment.
I am proud to have this decent man and true patriot in our state legislature.
March 2, 2008 at 11:10 pm
But he is not very bright.
March 3, 2008 at 7:22 am
Not very bright? Grayson, give it a rest. Rep. Pearce is very knowledgeable, holds a BA degree in management and is well regarded.
Professional Experience:
Director, Arizona Motor Vehicle Division, 1995
Director, Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, 1994
Chief Deputy/Under Sheriff, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 1970-1993
Judge, North Mesa Justice Court, 1991-1992
United States Army National Guard, 1965-1972.
http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=28448
And, he’s been able to win his elections, which is a lot more than you can say.
March 3, 2008 at 8:19 am
Just to add to this conversation, I’d like to say that Representative Pearce has ably carried out the duties of his job for his district. I am a constituent of his and am grateful he’s serving. BTW, I am not Mormon, related to Pearce or have any personal connection to him other than seeing how well he has understood what the word “representative” means.
May God bless him.
March 3, 2008 at 10:19 am
There’s another way to look at this: an exchange of ideas. One candidate has a legitimate way of looking at the immigration issue; another candidate has an equally legitimate (i.e., neither man is a fringe crank) view. The voters will choose. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say any incumbent gets a free pass. If we value our republican democracy, we value healthy campaigns. I live in LD 22, so I have nothing but a sporting interest in this particular race; but as iron sharpens iron, so these candidate will sharpen one another and the constituents will ultimately benefit.
March 3, 2008 at 1:30 pm
DGN:
Please explain how granting legal status to 25 - 40 million people through amnesty to those in our country by unacceptable illegal means is a “legitimate” argument?
Jeff Flake has sponsored programs granting government subsidies to such lawbreakers. Those are our tax dollars. Flake’s brother in law is an immigration attorney on the same side of the issue.
These are not merely another, legitimate way of looking at issues. This falls into the category of aiding and abetting criminal activity.
March 4, 2008 at 10:10 am
Ron:
I am not taking a position. I am merely saying good people can passionately and legitmately disagree on this and any other issue. Members of Congress write the laws and laws may or may not be changed depending on the will of the voters. If voters choose a candidate who expresses his or her desire that some people should have amnesty - no matter how odious that notion may be - then that is the will of the voters. In that sense both candidates in this race are legitimate, whether or not you agree with their positions.
March 4, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“The will of the voters?” No, DGN. Elected representatives, whether on the local, state or federal level cannot represent both your view and mine. They represent themselves.
And I take exception with your point that all views are worthy and there are simply differing vantage points. That is the backbone of liberal debate. Using that view, you can condone nearly anything and fall back on the differing perspective concept.
It simply doesn’t work. I can say that after twelve years of age too many children become difficult, are no longer cute and cost too much. We shouldn’t allow them to continue past twelve years. You might call that murder and find it a horrifying perspective and even enact laws against such a practice.
But if it was my view, then according to your logic, it should hold equal weight with yours. We can “just agree to disagree,” (Another lovely leftist fallback.)
I happen to believe there are good reasons to be judgmental and discern the good from the evil. I also believe there are valid reasons to uphold the law and secure our national borders. We live in perilous times, but even if that were not the case, every nation has that basic right to define its own perimeters.
One last point: Sitting in judgment has recently become a contemptuous endeavor. Yet society pays good salaries to people who don black robes and do just that. If one is raised with respect, good manners, morals and decency, it is incumbent on them to judge that which is ruinous to society.
And to respond to your first line: Why not take a position? Some things are right, others are not.
March 4, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Ron;
If you can’t see the value of having two candidates discuss and debate an important issue and then leave it to the voters to decide, then we can’t have a discussion. That’s fundamental to our representative democracy, and you certainly know that.
The Founders were well-known for having philosophical debates that got fairly heated and personal. Does that make them all liberals? Hardly, and neither am I.
I have not said all points are worthy; they’re not. But there is value in having a debate.
And any elected official who does not understand the will of the majority of his or her constituents will sooner or later be out of a job.
March 4, 2008 at 3:23 pm
If your last sentence was true, McCain would not be Arizona’s senior senator.
There is great value in longstanding name ID and being able to out distance your opposition in media buys during the election campaign. Fundraising is much easier with longevity in office. Securing endorsement of the rest of the congressional delegation who dare not buck you, also helps. Also, Arizona is rife with newcomers who know a name better than a record.
If name ID didn’t matter, why do you think the roadways are littered with signs during the campaign season? None of this has anything to do with what the majority of the voters care about. Fewer people read anything and base opinions on whether their favorite celebrity endorses someone or after they have watched a 30 second ad or digested a ten second sound bite on the news.