Representative Paton Heads to Iraq

Jonathan PatonI was surprised to read via a link on Drudge Report this evening that Representative Jonathan Paton will be heading to Iraq at the end of August (read story). Jonathan has been a friend of mine for about ten years. Together, we have been a part of a handful of young Republican gents who have ventured into Southern Arizona politics. Unlike Jonathan, my bid for public office was not successful.

In 2000, Jonathan made his first attempt to represent the east side of Tucson and Sierra Vista. He narrowly missed being elected but was successful in 2002.

As Jonathan heads off to Iraq so serve his duty as an Army Intelligence Officer, my prayers will be with him. He leaves in the middle of his re-election bid but I am confident that the voters will re-elect him for his tremendous dedication to service. Jonathan has my personal endorsement and in conversations with him he knows I strongly encourage his constituents to cast their vote for him.

May God bless and protect him as he heads to Iraq to serve in the great cause of peace and democracy for the Iraqi people.

Remote campaigning.

     In the absence of heavy polling sometimes you need to look at the little things to find out how a campaign is doing. Candidate forums do not usually win or loose a race but they are a great chance to talk face to face with motivated voters. 

     I brushed off the fact that Steve Huffman missed the Marana Chamber of Commerce forum back on May 18. Not all of Marana is in CD 8 and Steve was busy in the legislature pouring money into his bottomless-pit pet project known as Rio Nuevo. Plus it was May, why build name recognition early in a crowded primary? 

     When I read this article in the Arizona Daily Star I realized his campaign is in trouble. The forum was held in Quail Creek, a master planned retirement community just east of Green Valley. This is well within CD 8 and old people vote in greater numbers than other demographics. Apparently that fact is lost on the Huffman campaign. With 14 days until early balloting starts, Steve missed this forum. The event was sponsored by the Green Valley Republican Club and the Quail Creek Republicans. Not a good group to ignore when you are running for elected office and few of them have heard of you. (Steve served in the legislature about 1 hour drive north of Green Valley / Quail Creek area.) 

     Maybe Steve thinks his jumpy ads will save the day. Good luck! 

Don’t shoot the messenger.

     I know some of the readers of this blog are Munsil supporters so please read the title of this post carefully. 

     Len recently cited the Battleground poll from WSJ/Zogby.  He failed to mention anther recent poll done by Behavior Research Center.  The Zogby poll shows Len doing about as well as Goldwater in a race with Janet. Len was correct to point out that his numbers have moved a lot more than Don’s have. 

     The poll from BRC is more detailed. It shows a huge number of undecided in the Republican Primary (we knew that.) It does show Don doing better than Len against Janet, by about 10 points among likely voters. But both of them receive a drubbing in the general, Don losses 28% to 57%. Len looses 18% to 58%. It is still early; vote by mail is 14 days away, so there is some time. 

     The truly amazing number is how Len is doing in Rural areas and Pima County.  It is bad enough that Munsil trails Don 16% to 22% in Maricopa County. The numbers for Rural are dismal, Don 25%, Len 3%.  Maybe the poll is invalid because Mike Harris is polling 8% of Rural primary voters. The worst number for Len is the * that he received in Pima County. That means he did not get more than 1% of Republicans in Pima County to express an interest in his candidacy. Pima County is certainly not the center of the Republican universe in Arizona but it does contain 14% of the state’s registered Republican. There are many pockets of conservatives in the county and they would be receptive to Len’s message. 

     Add to this the fact that inside sources in the Goldwater campaign say it is just a matter of when Don turns in his $5 forms, not if. Yes Len got his forms in much earlier but as soon as Don’s forms are approved he will get the same check for $453,849. My guess is that not much of it will go toward political consultants and most of it will go directly into advertising, just a guess. 

     Speaking of consultants maybe when Nathan is not busy throwing solid conservatives under the bus he could earn part of his $6,000 a month and get Len’s numbers in Pima County above 1%. I would not recommend that Nathan personally visit Southern Arizona. Colette Rosati has friends outside of Scottsdale and they will never forget what Nathan has done. 

     I don’t have a horse in this race. Both Len and Don would have positives and negatives in their race against Janet. The biggest negative is Janet’s popularity. Never the less no one likes to spend money on consultatnts so they can get an * in a poll. 

Carolyn Allen Expenses

Here’s a link to the last financial report (June 30th) submitted by the Carolyn Allen campaign to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office: http://www.azsos.gov/scripts/cfs_committee.dll/TransDetail?CYCLE=2006&PeriodID=2&FILERID=200693319&ID=D

Voter guides.

     The Clean Elections voter guide has been arriving in mailboxes this week.  My observations are as follows. 

     Mike Harris is a fool for not sending a picture and statement.  This campaign is doomed for other reasons besides this but missing out on the pamphlet is a huge mistake. 

     One of the main issues in District 8 Senate Republican primary is abortion and neither candidate will use the word.  Allen give a hint when she mentions that she worked with the National Organization of WomenRosati only says that she earned the Friend of the Family award. 

     Despite his changing status as a candidate Russ Jones has a nice photo and statement. 

     The Democrats have no chance of winning in District 26 and Charlene Pesquieva’s lack of a photo and statement will not help. 

     Toni Hellon says she represents Saddlebrooke in Pinal County but at a recent forum criticized Al Melvin because he was from Pinal County and implied that he would not be able to represent Pima County.  I’ve got news for you Toni.  If you can represent Pinal Al is more than capable of representing Pima County as well as all of his district. 

     Hellon goes on to list campaigns that she has worked on: Bob Walkup, Jim Kolbe, Jane Hull, and John McCain.  With a list like that of moderate/liberal Republicans I guess that she has written off the conservative vote. 

     The conservative candidate for District 26 Senate, Al Melvin, gets right to the point with his opening sentence “For too long we have been electing Republicans who campaign as Republicans and then go to Phoenix and vote like Democrats.”  Very clearly stated as well as TRUE. 

     More on the house races later. 

A Response from Judith Connell

I received a response from Judith Connell which I will gladly post in entirety in the spirit of fairness. I will also apologize to Judy for impugning her pro-life values.

I do need to express my continued extreme frustration and disappointment with endorsements by pro-life / pro-family leaders (present and former) of candidates who oppose any efforts to protect life and the family.

Here is Judith’s reply:

Shane;

On first read of your blog of Wednesday, July 19th, my instinct was to dismiss the many errors, omissions and inaccuracies; however, after you apologized for the same offense regarding Nathan Sproul in your Thursday, July 20th blog, it is necessary to set you and the record straight.

First, I served Arizona Right to Life because of principles, convictions and values, which I hold dear.  In more than 23 years of involvement in the political arena, no one has ever questioned my credibility as a pro-life conservative.  For you to have done so makes you look foolish.

Did I take the abuse of Dr. Brian Finkel while picketing his office for weeks for money?

Did I run for the legislature against a pro-abortion candidate who won and was later convicted in AZ Scam for money?

Was money the driving factor that led me to manage one of Congressman Trent Franks’ earlier legislative campaigns?

Certainly I could continue to enumerate, but surely you must get the picture.  I’ve lived my principles. Money could never purchase them.  I have proven time and again my convictions regarding the pro-life situation. 

You hold my relationship and endorsement with Senator Carolyn Allen up as proof that my whole life’s work is invalid, and you are wrong young man; quite wrong.

I first met Sen. Allen when she and I served on a Governor’s Task Force on Teen Pregnancy Prevention.  It was there we found common ground.  We shared the conviction that preventing teen pregnancy went a long way toward preventing abortions.

It is precisely because I was willing to reach across the divide and work with an elected official who is pro-choice that progress is made.  The door was opened and we could find common ground because I was willing to listen.  Since I left that position, noticeably the door has once again closed.  Nothing has been accomplished.  Just as my wise Grandmother told me, “You attract more bees with honey than vinegar.”  You might want to give that some thought.  No one has made an effort to solicit Sen. Allen’s input and not an inch of ground has been gained.  When we approach those who are pro-choice, as is Sen. Allen, with an all or nothing mentality, we end up making no progress.

You seem confused as to my status at Arizona Right to Life.  I was Legislative Director for nearly 3 years, and Executive Director for six months, a vacant position I reluctantly filled for then Chairman, Laurie Tetzlaff.  I went back to lobbying for RTL as soon as the legislative session began and they found a new E.D.

Since you did not contact me before you wrote your original blog, perhaps this information will help you create the next one.  You made public many accusations.  Many of them have been answered. 

Since the entire tirade was based on my endorsement of Senator Allen, perhaps you might want to look at other pro-life elected officials and members of the community who are also supporting Carolyn’s candidacy over that of her pro-life opponent.  You might want to consider their endorsement, as well as mine, is based on the fact that Senator Allen is reasoned, well-rounded, and has a proven track record of representing all her constituents, not simply those who share her opinion on single issues.  She has mastered the big tent philosophy… something we should all strive for.

You owe your readers an apology and an explanation for the things you wrote about me.  They know my life’s work, and do not welcome your exaggerations, but if you are to be credible in your position, you need to print truth and facts.  You may well hold your own opinion on anything, but you are not free to smear a life-long soldier in this pro-life march while under the banner of Arizona Right to Life.

Judy Connell

Coleman Dahm & Associates
A PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMPANY

 

Blowhard blows it.

     See this story at ThinkRight Arizona blog for the latest on Pima County.

Did Carolyn Allen really say that?

I was digging through some transcripts of Horizon, KAET’s political show, and stumbled across this very interesting line of thought from the Senator in legislative district 8. I wonder how the East Valley Republicans feel about this.

This is especially relevant after the East Valley Tribune ran an article in which Representative Colette Rosati asserted that Carolyn Allen was closely aligned with Governor Napolitano. Here’s the proof from a 2005 interview – 17 months safely away from the 2006 Primary Election. In context, Allen was bemoaning the state budget:

These are kamikaze missions. There are people who are willing to stay through June and into July. I wonder how the public will feel if we shut down the government because these people are determined. This is not about the money, it’s about the policy. They don’t want her to have anything that she wants. They don’t — she wants Kindergarten, and I believe most of the public wants kindergarten, without vouchers attached to it. She wants the medical school. It’s $7 million. We just saw the amount of money that has come in. It was predicted that it would be about $37 million. It’s over $100 million, and next months the revenues. And it’s going to come even higher. If they cannot give us $7 million for the beginning of this medical school, it’s all political and it’s all about a bunch of people, in my opinion, that belong to the flat earth society. They basically meet in the house, but we have a little subset over here in the senate, and they are prepared to stay down here and they think they can run the same budget up over and over until she signs it. This woman does not bully, and these people are on a fool’s errand.

And they wonder why I keep saying that this woman does not have the temperament to serve in public office.

Clean Elections Debates are online!

For all those hardcore political junkies here’s a great link. Now anyone can watch the Clean Elections debate in the comfort of their own home. Here’s the link:

http://cleanelections.serveraz.com/

Dems launch frivolous complaint against Len Munsil

Howard Fischer, the roving reporter always looking for an opportunity to journalistically trash a conservative, wrote a story on Thursday in conjunction with Democrats trying to drum up negative publicity. Dems erroneously allege that Len Munsil spent more of his seed money than he had on hand in the bank.

Fischer writes:

He said finance reports filed by Munsil showed the campaign had spent virtually all the money it had by late April. And Munsil didn’t get his public financing until May 5.The reports also show the campaign had paid consultant Vernon Parker’s company $2,000 in March and $2,500 in May, but nothing in April. And consultant Nathan Sproul got $5,400 in February, $5,000 in March, $1,000 in April and $6,000 in May.

Waid ’ s complaint said that suggests two possibilities: The consultants gave away services in April when Munsil was out of money, which would be an illegal in-kind contribution, or they performed services in April knowing they would be paid when public financing came through in May. That, however, would violate laws prohibiting candidates from incurring debt when they don’t have money.

Sproul and Parker didn’t respond to questions about billing practices. 

 

Good grief! Did it ever dawn on the Dems or Howie that maybe no services were performed in April?

This reminds me of the old axiom I heard during the 1992 Democratic National Convention in which they characterized right-wing conservative Christians as people sitting around worrying and complaining that someone out there was having a good time. The one difference is that this time it’s the Democrats sitting around complaining that Len Munsil’s campaign is spending money it doesn’t have.

Did it ever dawn on them that maybe Len Munsil was out working the grassroots without the services of a consultant? Did they stop to think that maybe Nathan Sproul was dedicated during the month of April to getting the Protect Marriage Amendment on the ballot.

You know, it is possible to go out and campaign without spending a whole lot of money. All you have to do is ask Don Goldwater.

The issue here is that Democrats are looking for a story to go after the leading candidate for Governor. They figure why not file a “shot in the dark” complaint against Len Munsil and get some press from it. Howard Fischer is always available.

This is simply another case of Democrats looking to grow a story with willing media.

C’mon Howie, the next time Dems come to you, ask them for a little proof before you put pen to paper.  

P.S. – The last time I checked the Clean Elections Commission did not have any legal jurisdiction over how a company handles its books. I would have done the same thing that Nathan Sprould did except said, “It’s none of your business.”

P.P.S. – One final note. Ask anyone who knows Len Munsil and they will tell you that he is one of the most by-the-book men you will ever meet.

Point of Clarification on LD 8 Senate Race

In my previous posting with the legislative district 8 senate race, I probably came off a little tough on Nathan Sproul. I have known Nathan since I was the Vice Chairman of the Southern Arizona Christian Coalition. I was even a candidate to succeed him as Executive Director in 2000. In the time that I have known him, he has done tremendous work helping the pro-life / pro-family cause and electing good candidates to public office. I applaud his efforts.

I also applaud his efforts working with the Protect Marriage Amendment to the Arizona Constitution and in his consulting the Len Munsil for Governor campaign. Though we differ on his endorsement of a certain pro-abortion senator in district 8, this does not mean he has lost his way or compromised on his values. My earlier post brought his motivations and values into question. I was too hard on him and should have never second guessed his endorsement though I vehemently disagree with it. He obviously has his hands full helping Len Munsil (who I whole-heartedly support) to get elected to be our next Governor. So in this post, I hope that the degree of frustration I expressed in the earlier post will be read as simply that – frustration. In no way did I mean to impune his values.

Another point of clarification I do need to make in reference to Judith Connell. Judy never served as the Executive Director of our organization. She served a short period of time as the legislative director before she left the organization to pursue other interests.

The bottom line in all this is Arizona Right to Life’s Political Action Committee has endorsed Len Munsil for Governor (read endorsement). He has been a tireless and faithful leader in the movement for over a decade and is committed to the cause of life. He will make an excellent Governor and all of us need to work very hard to help him get elected.

Please get involved with his campaign by clicking here.

Spitzer Goes to FERC

The Arizona Republican party just announced that Marc Spitzer will be sworn in to serve on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission effective Monday, July 24th. That means he will be resigning from his current position on the Arizona Corporation Commission leaving an immediate vacancy. According to the Arizona Constitution, the Governor has the power to appoint a replacement. The big question is who will she pick?

In this election cycle, State Representative Gary Pierce withdrew from his re-election bid to the House to run for the expected vacancy. Pierce is a conservative Republican from the east valley and stands the best chance to win the open seat. Two Democrats and a Libertarian are also vying for the position. However, the Governor must replace the vacant position with another Republican, Spitzer’s affiliation. Governor Napolitano could choose Pierce to replace Spitzer but that would allow Pierce to approach the race as the incumbent.

Napolitano is more than likely to choose a RINO (Republican In Name Only) to replace Spitzer and I would venture to assert, based on her appointment of other high profile agency heads, she’ll pick someone like Roberta Voss or Carol Springer. Of course, this is all speculation based on her history of appointing RINOs like Betsey Bayless or Sue Gerard (both women lost to conservative Republicans in the last two election cycles). I’m almost willing to bet she’s going through her rolodex of WISH-list women to see who she can pull to fill the spot.

More Media Bias Against GOP Gubernatorial Candidates

This really threw me. The East Valley Tribune runs a story likening Republican candidates running in stealth mode. Reporter Dennis Welch equates money as the real factor for their invisibility. Not a whole lot of money coming in means no excitement toward the candidates. While this is true if you’re talking about the party organization, it does take several hundred thousand dollars to barrage television with image ads, that doesn’t mean that the candidates are operating in stealth mode. Sometimes its a matter of knowing when to “pull the trigger.” 

Welch also failed to mention that Len Munsil, the leading contender was a clean elections candidate and had obtained the maximum funding in a record amount of time. In reality, Len Munsil is receiving quite a bit of media coverage as he tours the state meeting thousands of people and stirring the grassroots to vote for him. Perhaps the Phoenix media market is a little too myopic.

Just in case you missed it, here are a couple of headlines that have appeared across the state:

“Candidate Munsil touts experience in public policy” – Kingman Daily Miner, July 18th

“The Race is on” – Mohave Daily News – July 18th

“Election 2006: Len Munsil, Reagan conservative” – Verde Independent,  July 12th

 

 

 

Ralph Reed – Bumped

An interesting note on Ralph Reed after I mentioned him in an earlier post. Reed as many know, was the National Director of the Christian Coalition in the 90′s. I actually met Ralph Reed in 2002 on a visit to Georgia Right to Life.

Last night he was dumped by Republican voters in Georgia in the Republican Primary for Lieutenant Governor. Republicans actually voted for a more conservative, pro-life, pro-family candidate in that race – Casey Cagle. Reed had been tied to the Jack Abramahoff scandal and conservative Christian Republicans were discerning enough to say no and send a message.

Here’s a serious ad the Cagle campaign ran against Reed – Ouch! Tough! I guess Reed really did sell our values out.

Roosting Chickens.

     Northwest Tucson has been a sanctuary for moderate/liberal Republicans for a long time.  There are several reasons for this.  One is that the Republican District 26 Committee and County HQ provided cover for the three H’s (now down to two.)  Anyone asking what’s with the voting record of Toni Hellon or Pete Hershberger is quickly told not to make trouble. 

     The days of sanctuary are now over.  What happened?  One of the biggest changes has been the growth in population.  Thousands of Republican voters moved to the area and they were more familiar with the name Reagan than Hershberger.  The internet has made checking voting records a snap and e-mail allows people to spread the word quickly and inexpensively.  Clean Elections allows a candidate with a message but little money to be instantly credible.  Finally blogs have made raw, unfiltered coverage available.  The message may stand or fall on its own merits but is not silenced. 

     These forces and some others have combined to bring a serious chance to the landscape.  This is apparent in Emil Franzi’s editorial in this weeks edition of the Northwest Tucson based Explorer News

Famous Relatives Do Not a Governor Make

Here’s a provocative post that appeared on Intellectual Conservative.com. You can read it here in entirety or by visiting the other blogsite: 

Famous Relatives Do Not a Governor Make
By Bennett Irving

Len Munsil clearly outdistances the other candidates in this crucial Arizona gubernatorial race. We need to think smart and put our fond memories of Barry Goldwater to rest with him. There is little to recommend his nephew.

There is a lot at stake as Arizonans are nearing the final leg of the primary election. Since the advent of early balloting, we no longer have an election day—rather an election month. The first day voters can submit their ballots is August 10, 2006, well in advance of the official election day of September 12th.

The importance of early voting cannot be overemphasized. There are crucial elements in this election cycle that are unprecedented. For Republicans, this is a watershed year, eclipsing others in recent memory. The current governor must be replaced. Janet Napolitano has repeatedly shown her contempt for the legislative process, by vetoing reasonable legislation and holding the Arizona House and Senate hostage to her belligerence and obstructionism. Most importantly, she is poised to remake the state judiciary in her left-leaning image.

Currently, in a state that has twice given its electoral votes to George W. Bush, and has only supported a Democrat presidential candidate once since 1948, we have a supreme court that is predominately liberal. Three of our five justices are Democrats. The possibility of another appointment under her watch is a major concern.

Len Munsil is the lone candidate who has the ability to break this stranglehold on our state. The problem is a four-way primary that has the potential to split votes, allowing Napolitano another four years at the helm of state government. This is serious business, requiring Republicans to make difficult choices.

Here are the facts:

Len Munsil: Within weeks of his December 1st filing, Len Munsil had amassed all of the five dollar contributions and seed money mandated by Clean Elections, as well as the requisite nominating petition signatures. Munsil is founding president and general counsel of The Center for Arizona Policy, a nationally respected, pro-family, public policy institute. With countless legislative victories under his belt, his radio messages and public appearances have put him in touch with hundreds of thousands of Arizonans statewide. This built-n constituency was evident as he broke records in collecting the necessary funding and petitions. Without a doubt, Munsil’s widespread support, organizational skills and legal knowledge place him at the head of the pack. The last mandated state filing documents show him with $40,210 in individual contributions, having reached the limit allowed by law. He has been endorsed by Congressmen Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, Rick Renzi and John Shadegg. Numerous state legislators have added their names to his growing list of supporters.

Don Goldwater: Most recently employed by liberal Democrat governor Janet Napolitano, his campaign is perched upon the famous shoulders of his late uncle, Barry. Now championing pro-life issues (although rife with exceptions), he previously ran, and lost his bid for public office—carrying the support of Planned Parenthood and other “pro-choice” groups. Although recently referring to himself as a financial consultant, his last job as events coordinator with Napolitano amounted to arranging for seating and microphones at gatherings in Bolin Plaza. We simply can’t afford to have someone with such a spotty history as the Republican nominee. Goldwater entered the race last summer and still has not qualified for public funding. Perhaps he’s devoting too much time to his stated hobby of playing the favored British game of squash. According to his last financial filing, he has raised $12,483.33 in individual contributions. The slogan on his website declares: The name you know, the name you trust. That was Uncle Barry. Today’s Goldwater is clearly not the engine to pull this considerable train.

Mike Harris: A self-funded candidate committed to spending $250,000 of his own money on his campaign, recently petitioned the court to reduce child support payments to his only child, a seven-year-old son. Described on his campaign website as a “successful businessman” and “loving father,” Harris’s comment regarding the $1,000 a month child support won’t go far in winning him the women’s vote. “For one kid, for a four-year marriage it’s pretty darn generous,” he huffed. His former wife filed a petition after he fell thousands behind in court ordered spousal maintenance. Harris’s response as to whether $1,000 a month is appropriate support for a child of a successful businessman: ” It’s all a matter of perspective.”
We can count this guy out.

Gary Tupper: Also privately financing his campaign, Tupper, who calls himself a moderate, is a political newcomer. He is the lone Republican candidate supporting abortion “rights.” A Chandler contractor, Tupper has raised only $1580 from eight individuals–including his own contribution of $760.

So, we’re down to the wire. Analyze this list and come up with the one person whose experience and abilities to challenge Napolitano merit your vote in the Republican primary. Len Munsil clearly outdistances the other entrants in this crucial race. We need to think smart and put our fond memories of Barry Goldwater to rest with him. There is little to recommend his nephew. The job of governor clearly exceeds his abilities. Sharing a name with a famous relative does not qualify anyone for anything. Goldwater should return to his job as a state employee in the Napolitano administration and carry on with his squash racquet.

Debate in District 8

Carolyn AllenCarolyn Allen was up to it again this evening – lying about her endorsement by Speaker of the House Jim Weiers. In the final remarks of the Clean Elections debate, Allen went on a tirade attacking Colette Rosati and pulling the “I’ve been endorsed by conservatives” card. As noted in an earlier posting, Carolyn Allen fabricated the endorsement by Speaker of the House Jim Weiers. Tonight, she lied again. In addition, she also stated that she has been endorsed by Nathan Sproul, the former head of the Christian Coalition and Judith Connell, former lobbyist for Arizona Right to Life, my organization.

Nathan Sproul’s endorsement was revealed several weeks ago in a story in the East Valley Tribune. The morning I read the story, I immediately went to the horse’s mouth. He confirmed it. I explained that Carolyn Allen has stood in the way of every good and decent piece of pro-family and pro-life legislation that has been introduced. Carolyn Allen has been one of Janet Napolitano’s biggest allies in the Republican party. Earlier this year in an interview on KAET’s Horizon, Carolyn Allen even referred to conservative Christians as members of the flat earth society. Her comments have been bitter and outlandish and her sense of decency vapid.

This obviously does not reconcile with the endorsement by Nathan Sproul, former head of the Arizona Christian Coalition. It’s as if Ralph Reed had made an endorsment of Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee or Senator Arlen Specter. There’s three possibilities here: 1) Nathan Sproul has been duped; 2) He does not hold the same values he once promoted and believed in as head of the Christian Coalition; or, 3) He does hold the same values but they are just not as important as they once were and his friendship with Carolyn Allen overrides.

Then there’s Judith Connell. Carolyn Allen threw Judith Connell’s name out and the name of Arizona Right to Life as if to show Arizona Right to Life was supportive. That is not the case. Judy was the Legislative Director of Arizona Right to Life some time in the mid 90′s. One of the annual conference books even states that she was Executive Director, although it was for a very short period. (I’ve been involved with Arizona Right to Life since 1990.) Why would Carolyn Allen throw out Connell’s name along with Arizona Right to Life? Again to cause confusion and trick the unassuming that she really holds a “moderate” postion. When I heard the endorsement, I was livid.  I immediately called Judy to confirm. She said that she had indeed endorsed Carolyn but from her position as a lobbyist. When Judy left Arizona Right to Life she went full time lobbying on behalf of tort reform at the capitol. So what gives? Either Judith was never pro-life and did the job simply for the money, or she doesn’t see the gravitas of the sanctity of life issue and will allow any pro-abortion politician to drop her name. You may recall that Judith also endorsed Kris Mayes in 2002 over another pro-life candidate. I assume the former is true.

I’m a true believer. Yep, I admit it. I believe that killing unborn babies is dead wrong. I also believe that it is the most important issue of our time. In 2004, the State of Arizona allowed 136 babies to be killed from abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy. There are premies laying in ICU wards that have been born at 21 weeks. If 136 babies were left in hot cars and died, there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. If 136 babies drowned in backyard swimming pools, buckets or bathtubs, it would be an epidemic. But these precious ones were killed simply because they were not wanted or they were too inconvenient. Yes, I take my job very serious and when I hear individuals who have always claimed to be pro-life announce or endorse candidates who are rabidly pro-abortion, I have a big problem with it.

Yes, Carolyn Allen is one of the most pro-abortion legislators in Arizona. She has voted against every piece of pro-life legislation and every bill protecting families and the institution of marriage. She is unfit for and does not deserve to hold office. Those who enable her are perpetuating the problem and I’m not going to remain silent while perverse endorsments take place.

A follow-up note on the endorsements…

Carolyn Allen also invoked the name of our two U.S. Senators and Congressman J.D. Hayworth in her rant and rave last night. I actually checked into this by contacting the campaigns. Here’s what I found out. Congressional elected officials usually practice a policy of endorsing the incumbent. Carolyn Allen is the incumbent in this race – although she is a liberal RINO. Colette Rosati is the challenger in this race. One of the Senators also revealed that they also do not endorse candidates who resort to nasty negative campaigning. In last night’s debate, it was very clear who took the low road. If this continues, and it will, it’s only a matter of time before our Congressional delegation yanks their endorsement of the bitter senator from district 8.