Republican candidate for state Senate Robert Worsley, a conservative Mesa entrepreneur with a track record of success in the private sector (unlike his government-mooching opponent in Legislative District 25, ex-state Senate President Russell Pearce, natch) is speaking out in opposition to Pearce's boycott against local businesses that advertise with New Times.
In a statement recently posted to his Facebook page and sent out as a press release, Worsley slammed Pearce for attempting to hurt Arizona businesses, comparing him to, of all people, way-lefty Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva.
"Russell Pearce is orchestrating a boycott against Arizona businesses simply because they advertised in a free weekly paper he disagrees with," says Worsley in the release. "B.A.N.'s founder is on record stating that this business boycott is being implemented because of the New Times' views on immigration. I have my disagreements with the New Times, but I will not do anything to hurt Arizona businesses."
Worsley continues: "Liberal Democratic Congressman Raul Grijalva called for a boycott of Arizona businesses after Senate Bill 1070 passed. It was wrong of Grijalva to penalize Arizona's businesses then and it's wrong for Russell Pearce to target them now."
Personally, I think the lefty politician Pearce most resembles is Venezuelan strong-man Hugo Chavez, both being bullies, one from the left, the other from the right. But Chavez still has power, unlike recalled 12-point loser Pearce, who is struggling to stay relevant as the head of the anti-immigrant organization Ban Amnesty Now.
As Worsley points out, it's not as if he and New Times agree on much, other than the fact Pearce is bad for Mesa, bad for Arizona's image and bad for the state's economy. Worsley, founder of the lucrative SkyMall catalogue, is a pro-business GOPer, and he's against hurting local job-creators, no matter what the cause.
(See Worsley's first campaign video after the jump.)
Indeed, I found quite intriguing recent comments on the conservative Sonoran Alliance blog to a BAN press release authored by Pearce's obtuse mini-me Sean McCaffrey. Many of Pearce and McCaffrey's fellow conservatives think McCaffrey's boycott is imbecilic. They even ridiculed McCaffrey mistakenly labeling BAN's campaign a "buy-cott" instead of the boycott that it actually is.
Worsley's first campaign video
"McCaffrey and Pearce didn't care about the New Times until they asked for BANs tax returns," one commenter correctly observes.
A "conservative railbird" noted that, "As for a boycott of the PNT? Not much chance of that since most B.A.N. supporters aren't the target consumer for most of the ads in the PNT. So its pretty much a dumb idea."
"Mesa Constitutional Conservative" offered this analysis:
"So hypocritical of Pearce & Co. to first freak out over people boycotting businesses affiliated with politics they disagree with, and then turn around and call for a boycott of businesses affiliated with a newspaper whose politics they disagree with."
Talk about a big, fat in-kind contribution. I would assert that McCaffrey is well aware that he may have transgressed the fine line in this instance. Hence, his and Pearce's porcine squealing over this childish "buy-cott."
In reality, McCaffrey and Pearce want to hurt me personally, as I'm the one who has exposed Pearce's corruption, bigotry and links to a certain prominent neo-Nazi over the years. So they're lashing out at my employer and those doing business with my employer.
Doomed to fail, the tactic is, as Yoda might say. It's also really wrong-headed. My employers allow me to have an opinion and to report on various subjects without censorship, but they afford that privilege to others as well. New Times is not monolithic.
Don't believe me? Stop by our Monday meetings sometime and you'll experience a joust of opposing ideas that'd put the Renaissance Fair to shame. McCaffrey and Pearce can't stand New Times' free flow of opinions, which our blogs certainly attest to, and this lame-o "buy-cott" is their cowardly attempt to snuff out viewpoints they disagree with.
How un-American, and un-conservative. I'm sure that neither William F. Buckley nor Barry Goldwater, were they still with us, would approve.
