The Scientific Method

Dear Friends:

Together we have won many battles in our ongoing efforts to secure our borders and protect our nation from the scourge of illegal immigration.  Whether the battle was Proposition 200 to deny public benefits from those here illegally and to protect the sanctity of the ballot box, our most recent success in passing employer sanctions at the State Legislature, or our successes in between, our combined efforts have turned the tide here in Arizona.

Read the whole thing.

When you want to test a theory, you must hold everything constant except the variable that you are trying to test.  I believe that Congressman Flake and Rep. Pearce are identical on every issue except immigration and on that one issue they are polar opposites. 

Flake will have a built in advantage that comes from incumbency.  He has the full backing of the Wall Street Journal and the Club for Growth.   He owns the earmark/pork issue, is staunchly conservative and has great teeth...so he starts with a 15 point advantage. 

But Flake and Pearce are both vocal supporters of opposite solutions to the immigration issue.  This race will be an referendum on Immigration. 

Pearce has been extremely successful at the ballot box.  The five immigration initiatives that have been on the ballot in the last 2 cycles have won with around 70% support. 

He is part of a small cadre of leaders who have managed not only to focus national attention on immigration, but also to drive the agenda.  Governor Napolitano went from supporting driver licenses for illegal immigrants to requesting national guard troops on the border.  Pearce's employer sanctions bill received two-thirds support in both chambers and was signed by the governor...this over the objections of the business community and every major newspaper.

However, immigration issues haven't translated into support for candidates.  Nearly 70% of Pima County voters supported the four "tough on immigration" ballot measures in the last election, but at the same time they voted overwhelmingly for Gabby Giffords over Randy Graf. 

Of course, the democrats tried to sound tough on immigration in the last election.  Harry Mitchell attacked J.D. Hayworth from the right on immigration.  So we don't have a clear picture of the issue.

This race will be different.  Pearce and Flake are national leaders on their respective sides of the immigration issue and that issue is the only difference between them. 

This is going to be a very interesting experiment. 

 

Comments

[John]

I'm thrilled! And I've signed up to help. They're both good social conservatives and both "taxpayer friends", or whatever the award says. But securing our borders and saving our hospitals and schools as opposed to opening up our borders and letting an abused welfare state take us under is a pretty easy choice to make!

[SonoranSam]

The Republicans have mastered the art of the circular firing squad.

[Conservative Majority]

I am glad that Pearce is running because now he will not ask Karen Johnson to run for the House. Pearce is termed out of the House and would need to run for Johnson's seat to stay in office.

Karen Johnson outshines everyone else in LD-18. She understands the Book of Revelations in the Bible. Those that support the U.N. and those that support a national ID card, do not understand.

[SonoranSam]

Yeah; we're all familiar with the Biblical condemnation of the United Nations. It's right after the warnings about the Trilateral Commission.

[Sad Republican]

SonoranSam, I hate to say it, but you are correct. Pearce is the ringleader of the circular firing squad and, with this announcement, he just yelled "AIM".

[ron]

Since Mr. Pearce has made it clear several times that he doesn't believe in the 11 commandment - this should be an interesting case of shooting fish in the barrel.

Make one wonder what D will wander in and clean up after the mess

[Ann]

This could very well be the cure for the very behavior described. Flake will have years of true representation and authentic leadership in a variety of topics or issues to fall back on not to mention his energy and positive people skills. On the other hand, Pearce is a broken record…. all roads lead to immigration. During the presidential race many topics will be raised and every candidate needs to be ready to address whatever comes their way. Flake will handle the job with ease. Pearce, well….

Pearce will yell AIM and those cut from the same cloth will start firing. Flake won’t blink. When the only weapon Pearce has doesn’t draw blood, he’ll fall flat. The primary will be Flake’s and so will the general. Pearce didn’t have an easy election last time, he was worried and he should have been; he was not the top vote getter in the race, Mark Anderson was. A couple thousand votes and he would have been LD 18’s Doug Quelland while Flake bested the Dem by a 3 to 1 margin. All in an election with a ballot full of anti-immigration props that did not transfer to the individual candidates, even Pearce.

When the might makes right crowd loses their poster boy maybe the other 11th commandment transgressors may just lose some steam and be found out for what they are. A minority in numbers just louder and meaner than most. The end result could be a purging of this type of behavior in our state.

If that is the end result....go Russell!

[muckraker]

Pearce is the scariest man since McCarthy. As for the Karen Johnson comment, are you really so kooky as to base your votes on who "understands" the Book of Revelations. Ever hear of separation of church and state?

[Joe Baby]

Muckaker, yes -- "Separation of church and state" was noted by Thomas Jefferson in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists, wherein he assures them he will not let government transgress upon their religious beliefs.

(Addressed to the board) When is the 11th Commandment transgressed? When I disagree with you?

[Timothy]

Yes, Joe Baby is right about Jefferson and the "separation." However, my favorite story from that era is the one where Rome wrote a letter to Ben Franklin asking permission to set up a Catholic hierarchy in the states and I recall Franklin wrote back something to the effect that we neither grant nor withhold permission. On point: I think, one, Flake will not blink and, two, Pearce is mistaking McCain for Flake. Flake is WILDLY popular in all but the most obscure little clubs.

[Jefftenet]

Pearce 39% Flake 61%

This will lance the boil.

[Mark]

What a fool Pearce is but thankfully Flake will clean his clock and we will be spared the agony of having to endure any more of the kooky Pearce. This could also demoralize his cronies, who are as nearly wacky as the seditious-left.

Thanks Rep. Pearce - you've made this right-wing conservative very happy!

[special agent johnny utah]

I suppose everyone's already forgiven Flake for breaking his term limit promise. To me, that's reason enough to vote him out of office.

[Ann]

Joe Baby, the 11th amendment is not transgressed by disagreement. To the contrary the purpose of the 11th amendment, to not only allow but encourage open disagreement and expression of ideas without the risk of attack and labels of heresy. Should one R disagree with another R, the differences must remain in ideology and not made to be the equivalent of a flaw in the person’s character.

Currently we have a small but loud horde who believes they hold the one true vision for governance that will make the party great. Their egocentricity is so blinding that they do not see the damage they do to the whole while exalting themselves and their platform.

[ron]

Right on, Ann, The 'fundamentalism' of this 'small and loud horde' if allowed to prevail will drive the Republican party into extinction.

[jdleslie1]

I once wrote to Pearce to oppose something he sponsored in the Legislature. I received a reply. It was rambling, circuitous, off point and brought immigration into something that had nothing to do with immigration. It made me seriously question his competence. If that's the Pearce who hits the campaign trail against Flake, I believe Flake will rout him, no matter how much alike they are on every issue but immigration. Obviously, Pearce has been effective communicating his points on immigration, but if he's Johnny One Note and cannot articulate on issues outside immigration, it will be more than incumbency that beats him.

[Doug]

I had a similar experience when I wrote to Harry Mitchell. His reply was rambling, circuitous and off point too. Maybe these guys just reply with form letters.

[Andy]

I want to keep Flake in Congress, he is too valuable to lose.

I would love to see Pearce move to Tempe or Scottsdale and get us out of the Harry Mitchell era.

Any big names lining up for the 5th yet ?

[netrootsdemocrat]

I am a gay, far-left Democrat who adores Senator Karen Johnson. I have worked with her on many issues and she has more integrity than than whole damn building combined.

It would be a loss to arizona for her to have to give up any seat she's. I actually agree with her on a lot (okay, well, not A LOT) of issues including sovereignty, these sell-out trade deals, tort reform, and soem others. I love the woman.

[BobH]

Greg: I think you're wrong about this being a clear test of the illegal immigration issue. I think many people who disagree with Flake on immigration would still vote for him, for a variety of reasons.

A major one is that many people (I count myself as one) are uneasy with single-issue candidates -- regardless of how they feel about the issue at question. Although I think illegal immigration is a very important issue (near the top of my list of priorities), and although I am far closer to Pearce than to Flake on that issue, I still would vote for Flake if I were in the district.

I don't think a majority of voters will turn against a guy they agree with on 99% of the issues, just because they disagree with him, however strongly, on one item. A few hard-core types will do so, but far from a majority.

I feel very strongly about pork, too, and Flake is one of the leaders of the drive to open up the appropriations process -- which has put him on a collision course with the leaders of both parties. We need that type of person in Washington.

Sam: You're right about this being a circular firing squad, but such behavior is hardly limited to Republicans. I recall a prominent case in Connecticut recently.

[thesnakeguy]

Flake supports a unilateral dissarmament approach to pork barrel spending. Everyone else keeps funding their pork projects, but not AZ. We live in a growing area with lots of needs, yet our tax dollars go to other places with congressmen that aren't as principled as Flake. Pearce understands the need for earmark reform, but also that we shouldn't be subsidizing other states with our tax dollars. Hopefully this issue will get some traction in the debate.

[Mesa Republican George]

I support Flake's approach. At least he stands up for what he believes in rather than talking out of both sides of his mouth. Snake guy's approach is the definition of hypocrisy. It's basically saying, "I know this isn't right but everyone else is doing it, so I have to do it as well." Flake may not be getting any earmarks for Arizona but he is bringing attention to the porking problem which no one else has been able to do. It has to start with someone. Good luck Mr. Flake!

[Joe Baby]

Ann,

Thx for your comments re: the 11th, and sorry for the snark on my part. Agree with you as to the first paragraph, although I think the "horde" is justifiably steamed at the actions of many within the party.

I'm not sure what you do with Repubs who support Dems, but I'd suggest a swift boot to the stern until they get the message or leave.

[BobH]

Besides being a hypocrite, Flake would not be taken seriously on porkbusting if he were trying to get pork for his district. It would be as if Pearce were knowingly hiring illegals to do his yardwork. Would you listen to anything he said on the subject?

And voters who say they want to clean up the pork situation, but don't want to give up their own pork, are also hypocrites and shouldn't be taken seriously.

But to get back to the subject, nobody is going to vote for Pearce except single-issue voters, and there aren't enough of them -- even on illegal immigration -- to win the primary.

[Timothy]

Flake's mistake, SAJU, was making the term limit pledge, not in the breaking of it. I like to think of it as an annullment, dumb decision, but no harm and no foul. And if the voters were misled, well, he's been re-elected in a contest with a decent opponent. Pearce will have a hard time capitalizing on it electorally, as the stated purpose of term limits is to turn out establishment types and tune in "ordinary" people.

[Special Agent Johnny Utah]

Timothy: that was the argument that Flake made -- "bad decision," "mistake," whatever. Funny how he only realized the error of his ways when it was time for him to leave Congress. Also, in my mind a pledge, a commitment, or a promise, whatever you want to call it, doesn't become any less a pledge, a commitment, or a promise just because it turns out to have been ill-advised. But Flake's commitment wasn't even ill-advised. There's no argument to be made that circumstances changed, he didn't know what he was doing at the time, etc. He knew what it meant, he knew the implications and consequences, he used the pledge to gain voter support and trust, and then when it was time for him to hold up his end of the bargain, he decided he didn't want to.

I admire Flake for a lot of things, but this definitely isn't one of them.

[John]

So if I want to leave my wife, I can, as long as I cite my oath as a "bad decision" or "mistake"? Wow... I guess giving your word (and making that commitment a central part of your campaign for office) doesn't count for as much as it used to, eh?

[Timothy]

Those are all good points, but the fact is he was still reelected after breaking the pledge. What do we learn from that? Aren't some people even reelected by the same district after changing parties mid-term? Aren't some rabid partisans that, once elected, learn to "work with" the other side? One thing I learned is that some of the greatest interest in term limits, self-imposed or otherwise, comes from other politicians, especially those that are about to be turned out. Now a better point is that a self-imposed term limit really kills your ability in Congress. You are not even worth getting to know, which obviously makes you less effective. Just so happens Flake doesn't need to be that effective, because he's not interested in pork. I truly wonder if that's a coincidence. Anyway, I have extremely low expectations of elected officials, which likely distorts my inclination to criticize one of them. I hold bloggers to a much higher standard.

[thesnakeguy]

It wasn't hypocrital for Reagan to increase our nuclear arsenal while pushing Russia to agree to a disarmament agreement.

it is the classic tragedy of the commons. It's the same issue we have with every city in the valley giving tax breaks to car dealerships and Walmarts to locate in their city so more sales tax revenue is earned. Every city gets less sales taxes because there is no agreement to not give tax breaks to the businesses that play the cities against themselves. The answer isn't for one city to screw themselves by not giving any tax breaks unilaterally, the answer is for a structural change where everyone gets together and agrees not to give tax breaks.

In the case of pork barrel spending the answer isn't to turn off the cash stream to your district while letting everyone else continue to suck at the trough. The answer is structural change that keeps everyone from feeding at the trough. We have enough of our own roads to build, we need to stop paying for roads and bridges in Alaska without getting our fair share back. Until the other districts agree to stop taking the pork we should insist on getting our share to.

Arizona is a donor state that gives more money to Washington that it gets back. Its about time Arizona stopped letting other states walk all over it.

[Ann]

It is opportunistic for Pearce to call Flake on his term limit pledge when it benefits his cause. If Mr. Pearce felt it a violation of integrity and cause for rebuke, where was his outrage prior to the 2006 election? That was his “violating” action, the expiration of his 3 terms. Pearce was fully aware of what was happening and if there were any concerns on his part, he deferred to his own political fight and remained silent. It was a non-issue, not a secret or a hidden fact.

Pearce is the one with the credibility problem over the issue. He allowed it to get a pass in 2006 because Jeff was important and necessary and Pearce was fighting for his own political life. But now, when Pearce has a different important and necessary personal need, he uses it against him. He can’t have it both ways; if he supported Jeff in 2006 he cannot now call Flake’s term limit pledge out as a negative. He proves himself to be manipulative and disreputable by doing so.

[John]

Gosh Ann, where does it say that Pearce supported Flake in 2006?

[Ann]

John, I stand corrected on "support" however my basic premise remains valid. His silence, while taking a very active and vocal role in the party, implied a willingness to accept the choice to run again in spite of a previous term limit pledge.

[John]

Actually, that's still pretty weak. I don't know that he was "silent" on it anymore than you do. But with all that Pearce works on, is he supposed to have a public opinion on everything our Congressmen do as well? We'll see in the election (if he runs) if he believes its an issue or not.

[Mark]

Snakeguy,

In essence, what you are saying is that if everyone is doing it, even if it's wrong, we should do it too. Sounds like one of the classic talking points from any number of Democrats or for that matter, pork barreling Republicans who need political cover for their pork spending ways.

[Chris]

Experiment aside, losing Flake would be utterly disastrous.

He's one of the only Congressmen left with any real credibility on the issues of pork and earmarks. You simply cannot take earmarks and crusade against them at the same time if you are serious about effecting real change. He's respected, if somewhat disliked, by his colleagues for his intellectual consistency, a value Republicans badly need to embrace once again. More importantly, the average person respects him. I believe Flake has potential to become a national leader in the Republican Party and a guy they can rally behind to whip the party back to its core principles of limited government.

And quibbling about Flake breaking his term limits pledge seems silly. You can't realistically do anything in Congress in only two or three terms. Flake simply came to that realization and saw there was more to be done. Griping about it is silly, especially when the voters elected him again after his “term limit.”

Now let's look at who we get in Pearce if he gets in. He's a single-issue guy with immigration, but one can, of course, argue that Flake is too. I don’t see that as a really important point. Where Pearce fails is in his style. Whereas Flake is on a slow, moderated campaign against pork and earmarks, Pearce is a bombastic firebrand who often demonizes and bullies his opponents. Yes, this might, and has, worked in Arizona. But national politics is vastly different from state politics, and Pearce's firebrand style simply doesn't work in DC, see Tom Tancredo to understand why. The real powers that be, I'm thinking guys like Kennedy, Pelosi, McCain and Kyl, will pigeonhole him like they've done to Tancredo.

Real, meaningful change in America has historically been slow (think: abolition, women’s suffrage, civil rights) and won by charismatic leaders who work to change minds and not demonize. Immigration reform and earmark reform will be equally slow, and Pearce’s style is incompatible with this formula. I always get the feeling listening to him that if you’re against him and his initiatives, you’re against America, Arizona, the working class, et al. (and for the record, I actually do support much of his initiative work). But Flake is your better shot at real change on the national level in earmarks. Pearce will be demonized as another right-wing lunatic.

[thesnakeguy]

Mark,

I don't like seeing people who don't have the same principles you espouse being rewarded for their lack of principles while we who stand up for our principles end up driving on crappy roads. We don't have to waste the money that comes back to the district on frivolous things, but we should insist that we get our fair share. I honestly don't see how that is hypocritical. I think the end result of Flakes position is that Arizona subsidizes other states pet projects. I hope one result of Pearce running is that we can talk about how to change that.

[Ephram]

This is fun to talk about but in the end Pearce will not run against Flake. He started his exploratory committee but it won't take long for him to find out just how shallow his support is. Look how long it took Don Goldwater to get his five dollar contributions to run, they run in the same pack. They get air time and make a lot of noise but it is limited support. He is running on one issue and sure its an important issue but people want a solution to the problem, that's why the "send them back" crowd didn't win in the last election. My guess is that he will trade places with Karen Johnson for one cycle and then run again for the House after that.