Skip to content

Anti-Horne Ad

This is the new anti-Tom Horne ad that is running in the Phoenix area, paid for by an independent expenditure committee. This guy’s record just gets better and better, donnit?

25 Comments

  1. Tyler M wrote:

    That ad is also running in the Tucson area. I have seen it a few times over the last couple days.

    I would like to know a little more background for the 2nd accusation in the ad. How many people on the board voted with him & maybe what were their political affiliations & why did they vote that way. It would be interesting if it was a unanimous vote.

    I’m sure it wasn’t just a: “Hey let’s let all teachers look at porn on their work computers. Sounds like a good idea to me. How about you?”

    But then again I could be wrong because I have no context for the situation just like the ad doesn’t really provide any.

    Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 10:45 am | Permalink
  2. Tyler M wrote:

    And by the way, since Horne has been so pro-abortion for so many years, as a Republican, it has been very difficult to convince myself to fill in the oval for him. Andrew Thomas was a much better, i.e. strong conservative, candidate. I feel like I let the people of Arizona down by not doing more to push Andy Thomas over the top in that extremely close primary.

    Rotellini, on the other hand, is completely unpalatable for conservatives. She’s about as conservative as Grijalva. What to do? What to do?

    Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 2:32 pm | Permalink
  3. TR Rides Again wrote:

    Actually, Tyler, Rotellini is receiving flack in her party due to her stance on the border and opposition to a number of Obama’s policies.

    She also has way more law enforcement and public safety behind her than Horne (9 sheriffs to his 4, AZCOPS, AZCPOA, Fraternal Order of Police, PPSLA, Firefighters and more). Don’t believe the Horne talking points on Rotellini – she is no ideologue, and also hasn’t been sanctioned by the SEC.

    C’mon, vote experience and integrity. You know you want to…

    Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 2:48 pm | Permalink
  4. Tyler M wrote:

    If what you say is true, it looks like libs & conservatives could both have a quandary on their hands with this.

    Since I would never vote for her, since she’s for the murder of the unborn too, the only other option would be checking out the 3rd party candidates or doing a write-in, which I know wouldn’t even count at this point if I don’t vote for Horne.

    Like I said: “What to do? What to do?”

    Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 3:00 pm | Permalink
  5. jochas wrote:

    The ad is a total lie. Horne did not vote in favor of reducing the penalties for statutory rape. Horne did not vote to allow a teacher who viewed pornography on a school computer to keep his teaching privileges. The ad intentionally misleads the viewer to believe that Horne was accused of viewing porno, which is also false. Rotellini’s alleged experience is a total lie. She has never tried a criminal case in her life. She was an administrative agency lawyer, not a prosecutor. She did not win the Baptist Foundation case nor get a $217 million judgment against Arthur Anderson. She did not put criminals behind bars. In her 24 years as a lawyer, she got one, yes one, guilty plea. The anti-Horne ad is an Obama administration support ad from DC-based Democrat AG Assoc, funded by union money. Terry Goddard, the current AZ AG who opposed SB1070, is still a member of the Democrat AG Assoc. Don’t let California & East Coast unions, Obama, & Goddard control AZ election for AG w/ their AZ boycott money.

    Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 6:56 pm | Permalink
  6. jochas wrote:

    Felecia resigned as head of the agency which regulates the financial industry to work for a law firm which represents financial institutions, the shameful “revolving door” of politics: regulate an industry, go to work for it, solicit campaign contributions from it, get elected, go easy on the industry, then go to work for it again. More than 100 bankers and mortgage company employees have contributed to her campaign.

    Felecia failed to protect the consumers of Arizona from Mortgages, Ltd. predatory lending practices as Superintendent of banking (the Dept. of Financial Institutions), appointed by Janet Napolitano in January, 2006, serving until August, 2009 when she resigned to run for AG. Covenant Christian Church notified her in writing in November, 2006 of the illegal conduct by Mortgages, Ltd. Felecia did nothing. Arizonans lost billions, yes w/ a B, of dollars because of her negligence (or worse). Covenant Christian Church continued to complain to Felecia in writing ab/ Mortgages, LTd.: in Jan 07; June, 07; July, 07; Aug, 07; through Oct, 07.

    In June, 2007, Covenant Christian Church provided Felecia with a list of more than 70 lawsuits filed against Mortgages, Ltd, the significance of which is two fold: 1) clearly something was rotten; 2) its mortgage licenses should not have been renewed by Felecia in 2008. Felecia has expressed 3 excuses for ignoring the biggest mortgage fraud in AZ ever: 1) it was one letter; 2) it was a securities law violation, not banking; 3) the government doesn’t get involved when one corporation is suing another, because they can fend for themselves. These excuses are no good: 1) there were 6 letters during one year; 2) numerous banking violations were alleged in the more than 70 lawsuits, & in the November, 2006 letter. A senior partner (a lifelong registered Democrat) at one of AZ’s biggest & best law firms warned Felecia in writing several times in 2006-2007 that these were banking violations. 3) Covenant Christian Church is a church West of Phoenix. More than 20 of the 70 lawsuits involved consumers, not corporations, and even many of the corporations were small, Mom & Pop businesses, not self sufficient Fortune 500 companies.

    When the AG’s Office was questioned about it by New Times, the AG’s Office spokesman said that it “referred them [victims] to the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions.”

    Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 7:35 pm | Permalink
  7. Johanna Haver wrote:

    It is sad that the Dems feel they have to sling mud – often made up as in the case with Horne – because they cannot win a single policy debate. The ad was beyond the pale. I believe Tom Horne has a case for slander but there isn’t time before the election for him to prove his point. Fortunately, the ad is so assinine that I find it unlikely that anyone who favors Horne will be influenced.

    Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
  8. Soccerlisawoods wrote:

    Oh you Horne people deal with the fact that your
    Candidate is a scumbag and hypocrite.
    first a Democrat, then not, first pro choice then not.
    Notice he is the only Republican to not get the AZ right to life endorsement.
    What else 8 speeding tickets, lifetime ban from the SEC, shutting down his antique mall and kicking out residents. Not to mention the problems he has with women.
    Felecia’s opposing counsel has even credited her
    with the Baptist Foundation victory.
    Deal with it Horne is getting the same medicine he got when he went after Jaime Molera for not being able to handle Bilingual education through racist messaging.

    Lisa

    Sunday, October 24, 2010 at 11:48 am | Permalink
  9. Tyler M wrote:

    Soccerlisawoods-

    I would agree with you on everything except for the speeding tickets. Who cares about how many speeding tickets a person gets? A lot of people drive fast. Also, a lot of speed limits are way below where they should be.

    In regard to the antique mall, I have no knowledge of that. And in regard to “the problems he has with women”, I think that you need to be a little more specific.

    Regarding how “he went after Jaime Molera for not being able to handle Bilingual education through racist messaging”, I absolutely agree with you. His campaign in 2002 was appalling. Maybe he does deserve it since Horne has no shame when it comes to negative campaigning. He did the same crap against Andrew Thomas this year too.

    Regardless of all of that, as a conservative & understanding that Attorneys General try to use that as a stepping stone to becoming Governor, I will not be voting for Rotellini. But can I swallow a vote for Horne? That one will be tough to do.

    Sunday, October 24, 2010 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
  10. azw88 wrote:

    some of them were speeding tickets in school zones, as I recall. One or two would be one thing, but someone who wants to the the top law enforcement officer in the state having repeated tickets for the same offense? well, that is something different. Looks like a lack of respect for the law, especially combined with the whole SEC ban….

    Sunday, October 24, 2010 at 8:02 pm | Permalink
  11. Georgia wrote:

    Tyler, why is permitting a woman to choose for herself what to do with her body and her life by definition pro-abortion? I don’t know anyone who is out trying to make women have abortions against their will. One can be in favor of life, but also be a believer in a woman’s individual right to choose at the same time. Otherwise, you are an ideologue.

    Sunday, October 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm | Permalink
  12. Tyler M wrote:

    azw88-

    Like I said, I could care less about speeding tickets. Thinking that a couple of them may have been in school zones does not make it so. Even some school zones are set up as speed traps.

    The SEC thing if true, and I have no reason to believe that it isn’t, is obviously a big deal though.

    Sunday, October 24, 2010 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
  13. Tyler M wrote:

    Georgia-

    If you are so concerned about allowing females to have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, what about the 20 million or so female babies who haven’t had any choice at all since Roe v. Wade wrongfully legalized murdering the unborn?

    Since females would naturally account for about half of the 40 million US abortions since the Supreme Court legalized murdering unborn human babies, how have these females had any right to choose what to do with their own bodies? Did they get the right to choose whether or not they would be murdered? The fact is that there’s nothing pro-choice about it. You’re either pro-unborn infant homicide or you’re against it.

    Obviously, if the mother’s life is in danger, it wouldn’t be very pro-life to expect her to choose either her life or the life of her unborn child. So, that’s the rare exception, but don’t kid yourself that there is any option that is truly “pro-choice”.

    The concept of being “pro-choice” is as morally bankrupt as thinking that it’s a person’s own decision whether or not to own slaves. Before the Civil War, you could have been anti-slavery, pro-slavery or “pro-choice”. But truly if you weren’t opposed to slavery & condoned its practice even if you wouldn’t have owned a slave yourself, you were basically as bad as those who owned slaves.

    So, it is today. And protecting the rights of the unborn is the civil & human rights struggle of our time.

    Sunday, October 24, 2010 at 11:19 pm | Permalink
  14. Tom Prezelski wrote:

    Mr. M,

    Okay, you’re right, taking something he did years ago and taking it out of context is probably a little unfair, unfortunately, there are really no rules anymore. It is difficult for me to come up with any tears for Tom Horne after his own campaign’s behavior in the Republican primary against Jaime Molera in 2002 or, for that matter, his general pattern of race baiting and character assassination. What goes around comes around, jackass.

    Monday, October 25, 2010 at 2:30 pm | Permalink
  15. Donna wrote:

    Tyler M., do you think women who get elective abortions should go to jail?

    Monday, October 25, 2010 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
  16. Tyler M wrote:

    Donna-

    Doctors who perform elective abortions are murdering innocent unborn human infants with cold-blooded intent. They are either paid serial killers or assassins. These doctors should absolutely go to jail or get the death penalty for this horrific crime against humanity especially since they are knowingly committing homicide against an innocent human being.

    A woman who has a doctor kill her unborn human baby because that doctor convinced her that it was okay has a level of plausible deniability since she is following the advice of somebody who is supposed to be a medical professional. That doctor is obviously breaking his or her Hippocratic Oath. She should sue that doctor for malpractice for giving her such irreversible, criminal & deadly advice.

    If the woman fully understands that she has a human baby in her womb when she allows the doctor to murder it, then she obviously has some responsibility as an accomplice to a crime against humanity. But today, most women who want abortions are told that: “It’s just a fetus not a baby”.

    Monday, October 25, 2010 at 7:34 pm | Permalink
  17. Georgia wrote:

    Tyler, you pontificate so well for a person who lacks the physical equipment to deal with the issues involved. You also failed to respond to the point that no one is forcing women to have abortions, just as no one is forcing men to abandon the unwanted “wild oats” they so blithely sow. These are human decisions, made under free will, for which each individual will pay at some time to be determined. Let’s solve the problems of the existing babies and children who are being so badly treated under the rules your kind of thinking would have imposed on everyone. Not everyone is prepared to be a parent, just as not everyone is sensible enough to have sex under proper circumstances. Stop pontificating from a self-righteous position and try to do some real good in the world.

    Monday, October 25, 2010 at 9:16 pm | Permalink
  18. Appleblossom wrote:

    In other words Tyler, you will talk the talk but not walk the walk.

    You know darn well that putting women who get abortions into jail will do nothing more than make sure abortion remains legal. And you cannot admit that.

    Instead, you assume a woman is too stupid to know what she is doing so therefore she is magically absolved of her actions.

    Monday, October 25, 2010 at 10:58 pm | Permalink
  19. Soccerlisawoods wrote:

    Just read this article.
    http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/article_fbcd4151-3556-5db8-8096-db94b709171a.html

    in it the teacher admits to watching child porn. Horne was the deciding vote to let him back into the classroom. Don’t you all feel safe with him as AG?

    Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 10:08 am | Permalink
  20. tmt wrote:

    Tyler, go crawl back under that rock. You ignorance is really showing.

    Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 1:34 pm | Permalink
  21. Tyler M wrote:

    Appleblossom-

    Your lack of logic is astounding. And the hypocrisy in what you say is very typical of a left-wing worshiper at the altar of abortion. No logic & no moral or ethical standing whatsoever.

    First of all, your comment suggests that all women who have elective abortions performed on them are fully aware that they are murdering another innocent human being in cold-blood. That is just disgusting & I hope that is not the case. I am also less likely to rush to such judgments.

    You also must not have read what I wrote before or maybe it was just too deep for you to understand & I should have broken it down further. I had stated that plausible deniability could possibly protect mothers from criminal prosecution if they are following the advice of supposed medical professionals to murder their unborn human babies.

    But your claim is that all women who allow doctors to murder their unborn infants are fully aware that this is an act of murder. I cannot pretend to get into the minds of all of those women like you are doing here, but If what you’re saying is true, and a woman is proven to be fully aware that she is a partner in murdering another innocent human being in cold-blood, then of course she is an accomplice to this act of infant genocide.

    If it’s not popular to punish people who are fully aware of committing crimes against humanity; then so be it. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t go ahead and try to protect the next 40 million Americans who will be victims of this mass infanticide.

    Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 9:20 pm | Permalink
  22. Tyler M wrote:

    Georgia-

    I love how your blatant sexism shines through so brightly. You are the 2nd liberal sexist in as many days to comment on these posts. The other one was a female showing sexist feelings against her own gender, and you radiate with strong anti-male biases.

    First you suggest that men are not anatomically equipped with the ability to have an opinion on abortion. You are similar to those who thought that slaves were not qualified to know whether or not they should be free. Just as I mentioned the 20 million plus murders of unborn female human babies since elective abortion was legalized by judicial fiat, there have also been 20 million murders of unborn male infants during this same time. Obviously, this crime against humanity affects males too. Or are you that sick that murdering 20 million males sounds like a good idea to you?

    I believe in protecting the life & liberty of all human beings, but you seem to only care about someone who might feel inconvenienced by a pregnancy. Yours is a truly selfish take on this whole matter.

    Of course, your sexism goes further & you talk about men like they are all dogs just looking to hump the next thing that walks by them. I don’t know what kind of men you hang out with, but your over-generalizations of men show that you lack the ability to separate your own distaste of men from the factual proof that there are many good men in the world.

    One of those men could be your own father or the father of somebody close to you. Would his opinion as to the welfare of his own children be as invalid to you as you are making this out to be? Does he not have the right to help raise & protect his own children?

    Yes, there are deadbeat dads. And there are men who are irresponsible. They should never be allowed to get away with this kind of behavior. But aren’t there deadbeat & irresponsible mothers in this world too?

    Now, the question of the child, if the child would be born to a crappy dad or a crappy mom or a crappy pair of parents, does that mean that we should just save that child the misery & just kill that baby before he or she gets to that point? Absolutely not! The government has a very important role in protecting children when the parents won’t. And this role can sometimes include protecting children from their own parents.

    Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 9:44 pm | Permalink
  23. Tyler M wrote:

    Soccerlisawoods-

    Thank you for sharing that link. It give a lot more background to this 30 second anti-Horne ad.

    And wow, that story is messed up. Horne should not have deferred judgment like he said he did in this case. He should have used his vote to protect children. I’m glad that the former teacher had gone through counseling, but now he needs to find a new profession away from children.

    It says in the article that the former teacher asking to have his license reinstated was actually looking at pornographic websites with images of minors. Teachers caught doing things like that should be on a one strike; you’re out policy.

    Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 9:57 pm | Permalink
  24. Appleblossom wrote:

    No, it is quite logical Tyler.
    You just hate admitting it.

    Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 11:24 pm | Permalink
  25. Tyler M wrote:

    Appleblossom-

    What do you mean? Do you mean that it’s logical that liberals won’t use logic & rely on hypocritical arguments? Well, of course, I already knew that.

    Wednesday, October 27, 2010 at 12:54 am | Permalink