Mr. Worsley seems to put a 100% mark up on just about
every st8ment he makes these days. Anything for a vote.
Take this one for example. On his Facebook page he st8ed:
We conservatives believe that less government or smaller government is one of the basic planks of our Republic. My favorite State Senator Stan Turley has been gracious to spend several hours with me tutoring me on State Government.
Tutoring? Well, what should we expect from someone who has never even so much as signed up to be a Precinct Committeeman until this year? And he's getting tutoring help from Stan Turley? We suspect that many on Worsley's campaign weren't even BORN during Turley's 22 year legislative career.
Were they also aware that Mr. Turley admits he started out as a Democrat before running as a Republican?
As a matter of fact, I was a Democrat I guess to start
but I kind of turned Republican.
but I kind of turned Republican.
Yeah I changed. It wasn’t any big deal to change. Republicans just didn’t run much. You had Democrats running against each other for office but you didn’t have Republicans run so really your election would be in the primary to decide who the Democrat was going to be that ran. So then I changed and I don’t remember exactly when or why. I just changed.
Stan told me that he introduced just 15 Bills TOTAL in 22 years at the Capitol (CAP Water Allocation, No Smoking in Restaurants were 2 notable laws of the 15). My opponent has introduced 1,000 Bills in 11 years!! Each bill costs $1K just to introduce... cool $ Million wasted. Last session there were over 1,600 new bills proposed at the Capitol... A RECORD. Where did the smaller government idea get lost in the decade between Stan and my opponent?
Mr. Turley st8ed about his time in the legislature:
...you had the sixty-three day sessions... you got paid $200 a week for nine weeks and you went home. You didn’t have to mess around with constituents like they do now. You’d have a few things and then you tried to do a few things to help people...but I've always looked at the legislature as an opportunity for public service, that is, should never become a job. It just should not become a job, a lifetime job that somebody would try to get and just stay there. Even though I stayed for twenty-two years..."Well gee, I got to...". Oh I got involved but I didn't really sponsor a lot of stuff. I'm just kind of a status quo...."
Where to start?
1. Mr. Turley sponsored a bill that banned smoking in restaurants? We thought the smoking ban in restaurants didn't happen until 2006 with the passage of Prop 201. Unless elevators are the same as restaurants?
According to Mr. Turley, one of the good things he did while in the legislature was the Groundwater Act of '82. And then he said: (pg 25)
Well, we did another. We did outlaw smoking in elevators. It took us four years...We were laughed off the floor. It took us four years to outlaw smoking in elevators. Mr. Pratt and I sponsored that bill....now you're outlawed in the whole town.
(We're not sure that smoking ban laws would be considered conservative or "small government" when you impose regulations on local businesses and tell them what they can and can't do. Especially when Prop 201 was supported by groups such as NOW and the Sierra Club. He sounds more like a Progressive. You have to start out small by banning smoking in elevators knowing eventually it will be "outlawed in the whole town".)
2. If Mr. Turley feels that public service shouldn't be a lifetime job, why would he endorse Jeff Flake and Kirk Adams?
3. We also have to wonder why the Worsley and Adams campaign aren't pointing out the public pension that Mr. Turley has enjoyed since his 22 year career in the legislature. Afterall, they love to criticize Russell Pearce for daring to draw from his MCSO pension.
4. We thought it was interesting to read that the reason Mr. Turley "didn't really sponsor a lot of stuff" wasn't because he was being fiscally responsible as the Worsley campaign would like us to believe. No, in fact, Mr. Turley admits to being "status quo".
He also admits (pg 42-43)
I think it's too bad when one party is in too long and the Republicans for example in Arizona now have had the House and the legislature for too long. They had it now since....1967 and they have got it by quite a majority. I think it would be better if it was either evener, or in the Senate they have gone back and forth a few times.
When you have a real right wing and a real left wing if you're going to get a solution.... are not going to be in either perimeter. They are going to be shaken kind of toward the center someway. If you're going to have a solution, a partial solution, it's usually not going to be an extreme position. And I see where you have a Republican Senator from Oklahoma just got elected to go to the United States Senate. And here's a guy that has some very extreme positions.
I don't know how he even got elected.
(With views like these, it isn't hard to see why he would endorse Jeff Flake, Kirk Adams and Bob Worsley)
Let's go back to Mr. Worsley's claim:
My opponent has introduced 1,000 Bills in 11 years!!
Last session there were over 1,600 new bills
proposed at the Capitol...
First of all, Senator Pearce wasn't there in the last session. Therefore, the "1600 new bills" proposed have absolutely NOTHING to do with Mr. Pearce. (Perhaps more tutoring on what constitutes a "session" might be in order? Also, by our count, there were actually 1450 bills introduced not counting resolutions. 900 in the House and 550 in the Senate.)
Now let's take a look at the ACTUAL number of bills that Russell Pearce introduced as a Prime Sponsor (P*) during his 11 years in the legislature. (As we have learned from our research trying to find the infamous Adams budget and pension bills, the person listed as the Prime Prime Sponsor indicated by P* is the one responsible for introducing the bill. Again, maybe more tutoring on the bill making process might be in order?)
Total number of bills Pearce introduced: 339
Of those bills, 69 were "technical corrections"
Another 26 were in reference to budget bills
(see, when you actually AUTHOR a budget, your name appears as a Prime Sponsor)
In the first session of 2011, there were a total of 1400 bills introduced in both the House and the Senate, not including the various resolutions. Russell Pearce was the Prime Sponsor (P*) on 14 of them and nine of those were "technical corrections". On the list of bills where Pearce is listed as a Prime Sponsor (P), 14 are HOUSE bills. Another 13 of the (P) bills listed are budget reconciliation bills. Because, remember, contrary to what Mr. Adams claims, the budget bills in 2011 came from the SENATE. Does Mr. Worsley have a problem with the six death resolution bills Mr. Pearce was a (P) sponsor for the victims of the tragic shooting in Tucson involving Gabby Giffords?
The reality is that Mr. Pearce was one of the legislators who introduced the LEAST number of bills in the first session of 2011.
Throughout his 11 years in the legislature, Senator Pearce introduced multiple pieces of legislation concerning concealed carry, strengthening school choice, military family relief, taxpayer bill of rights, multiple abortion bills (partial birth abortion bans and parental consent), protecting the secret ballot and protecting marriage. Just to name a few.
The only sour note we hear is coming from the Worsley campaign when they attempt to saddle Mr. Pearce with only introducing illegal immigration bills.
As one can see from the other bills listed above, Mr. Pearce was far from a "one note" legislator but rather, he was "instrumental" in showing true leadership and strength when it came to the best interests of the state.