Sun 8 Jul 2007
The Northwest Tucson/Oro Valley/Eastern Marana area (Legislative District 26) will be ground zero for the competition between the Democrats and Republicans for control of the state legislature. The voter registration in the district is currently 41% Republican, 31% Democrats, and 28% other.
The Democrats surprised themselves last year by taking not one but two seats that normally go Republican. Lena Saradnik ran an excellent campaign and took a seat in the house previously filled by Steve Huffman. Even the novice Charlene Pesquiera won the senate seat held by Toni Hellon, who did not survive a primary challenge from Al Melvin.
Hershberger is term limited out of the house in 2008. This gives the Republicans two openings there. Marilyn Zerull has already announced and filed her campaign committee with the state on June 4th. Trent Humphries has also announced and filed his exploratory committee on July 6th. There is also talk of Vic Williams entering the race. If that is the field look for a congenial primary focused on issues that affect people’s everyday lives and less pandering to the religious right. There is some chatter about other persons entering but with a full field of qualified candidates there does not seem much reason at this point.
On the Democrat side we expect Lena Saradnik to run again. In what may prove a fateful move the Democrats are looking to run two candidates for the house. This is a risky strategy given the more mainstream Republican candidates and the loss of focus that comes from just one Democrat running for the house. According the Tedski at RRR the other candidate will be Don Jorgensen. (We are not sure if we should call him Dr. Jorgensen since his Ph.D. came from the now decertified Columbia Pacific University.)
In the Republican senate primary we may have a face off between conservative Al Melvin and liberal Pete Hershberger. Despite rumors that Pete will switch parties, as appealing as that sounds, we are not holding our breath. That being said we do wonder why Hershberger does not just pull a Toni Hellon and move on to a much higher paying position within the bureaucracy.
While Melvin easily beat Hellon is his first primary look for Hershberger to run a more competitive campaign. We do not subscribe to the theory that Pete has the nomination in the bag because his voting record is noticeably more liberal than even Hellon’s was and it will not play well in a one-on-one Republican primary. Further the Hershberger name is more myth than reality, with none of them having ever served in the senate.
We keep hearing conflicting stories about Democrat plans for the senate seat. Unlike Saradnik, Pesquiera does not seem to relish serving in elected office. Stories go back and forth as to whether she will run. The Democrats would be wise to find another candidate whose heart is more in the race. Theoretically if they could recruit Hershberger for the seat Pete would be much more competitive against Melvin in the general election than in a Republican primary. But then reason does not always win out in politics.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
If you really want to put a twist in Mr. Hershburger’s BVDs, stick another RINO in the race. He allready fears what he calls “The Gould Factor”.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
OVD,
It hurts somewhat to say this to you as I consider you to be reasonable overall, but why is it somehow congenial campaigning on issues that affect peoples lives when talking about more liberal candidates and pandering to the religious right when talking about more conservative candidates?
Are you trying to say that “moderate” or more accurately liberal candidates are leftist atheists? I have never heard anyone in that group consider themselves the religious left.
I also seem to have to remind those who call themselves moderates – because they know that the liberal definition does not fly – cannot figure out that the conservatives are the mainstream in the Republican Party since those values have been codified as the Party Platform position for TWO GENERATIONS! THAT WOULD BE FUNCTIONALLY AND FACTUALLY MAINSTREAM.
Those who are more liberal are really out of the Republican mainstream and are the left wing extremists in the Republican Party. If they want to be in the mainstream of a pollitical party with those values, they are in the place. We Republican mainstreamers welcome the liberals as our left wing friends, but we do not pander to them.
We are much more compassionate than the liberal mainstream of the Democrat Party who will not let their right wing members have any voice. To prove the point, list a Democrat conservative with any visibility since Pa. Gov. Casey was totally abused.
Perhaps there is more than just a bumper sticker slogan behind the terminology -Compassionate Conservative.
July 8th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
I wouild agree with the sentiments of GOP PK.
All too often our commentators use terminology and acceptable descriptive parameters created by the Left in framing their articles!
When we do this, we unconsciously cede the battlefield before the struggle begins!
July 8th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
PK,
I hope you are not advocating a clear discussion about each candidate’s position on sodomy? That worked so well last time in LD 30.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/politics/141812
Senator thank you for checking in. Any word on what will be happening in LD 3 for 2008?
July 8th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
No, and that was not the point. It seems that it is alright with some people who are forever calling for UNITY, UNITY for the left wing liberals to betray their own candidates and support the Democrats in the voting booth.
It is also disingenuous for you to base your position on this issue with one article – not even the lead article in a column – in the Red Star – recognized as the only paper in the state to the left of the Repugnant – as the justification to use terms like pandering to the religious right as the cause of Republican losses last year.
How does that explain the losses in LD10, LD11, LD17, LD23, LD24, LD26 or the loss in LD5 two years ago? None of those races contained It is clearly a red herring to even try to present that as having credibility when talking about LD26.
The original premise was about the house race in LD26 in 2008 and your assertion that the Party had enough candidates so there could be a congenial primary based on issues people care about without pandering to the religious right.
To be honest, I am really offended by your attempt to color the scene this way. The UNITY, UNITY crowd that would be irate if the conservatives indicated that they have enough candidates who supported their position in a race and that all others should not have the right to jump in.
The general – not universal but general -difference is the conservatives say lets have a vigorous debate, have a Primary election and we will support the Republican to defeat the Democrat. The liberals advocate UNITY by everyone else selling out their positions and joining the liberal position in the Primary, and if they lose, they support the Democrat.
I don’t think it was wise or appropriate of Gowan but that did not affect Republicans across the state. I also don’t think it is appropriate for McClure to negotiate with the ninth floor instead of the second floor as that affects the elected Republicans from every district.
The difference is Gowan lacked smarts and was defeated in part due to it and McClure lacks integrity and loyalty and gets rewarded with re-election. I would think that would bother you more.
Of course, if the Republican voters in Pima decide to elect a conservative in the Primary, with your position of thinking that they are pandering to the religious right, it might be that you think that this would bother you more.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
All I know is when we elect more liberal Republicans we end up with more taxes, more regulations, more spending and more government. They sell out every time in the name of playing nice” and avoiding being labeled a bogeyman. Simply put, they’re more concerned about what people think of them than doing the constitutionally right thing.
July 8th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Pesquiera will run and will win again if the GOP nominates Melvin. He was exposed in 2006 as an ideologue who also didn’t take the time to learn much about the day to day work of a legislator. His strident partisanship was a turn-off in LD26. Dan Schottel was the last true right-winger elected in our area of the county, but he at least took the time to learn what a member of the Legislature actually does!
Admittedly. Hershberger will present more of a challenge to the incumbent. His name is golden in LD26 and he is a vigorous campaigner who takes nothing for granted. Pesquiera would do well to remind voters that a Democratic loss in LD26 weakens Napolitano and emboldens the conservatives who will continue to run the caucus even if Hershberger wins. She should ask Pete who he would vote for as leader of his caucus and how he reconciles his party’s leadership with his own views on so many areas of policy. She should also vow to continue the aggressive, grass roots campaign she mounted after seeing the good it was doing Saradnik. Pesquiera’s win might not have occurred had she not picked up the pace during crunch time. Saradnik, conversely, ran hard from the start and surprised the haughty Jorgenson. She won’t let up next year and I believe she will be re-elected.
I enjoyed the debate above because I think BOTH parties have made it hard for those outside their mainstreams to feel welcomed. What happened to Joe Lieberman in Connecticut was a travesty after his decades of loyalty to the Democratic Party. However, Republicans should ask themselves what they have done to make lifelong party member Jim Jeffords of Vermont, whose family loyally served the GOP for generations, bolt the party in 2001.
Shrill extremists who design exclusive litmus tests do nothing but alienate potential allies…and marginalize themselves. Move On.org and The Club for Growth are different sides of the same coin. Folks like them are the main reason independents are the fastest growing segment of the electorate!
July 8th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Jeffords ran for office under the Republican Platform that has not substantially changed since 1976, was unhappy when people expected him to act like it, so he bolted.
Joe Lieberman was the Democrat Vice-President candidate, has not changed his position and the Democrat ilealogues cut his throat.
Not exactly correlative, but not exactly shocking from a D.
Melvin lost because he had the audacity to defeat a liberal in the Primary and people betrayed their own party. Simple as that.
Again, I know it is not a convenient truth for liberals, but the conservatives are in alignment with the founding principles of America, while the liberals are more in alignment with the founders of modern day European socialism.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Think the Dems are being clever by running someone named Jorgensen? I wonder if they want the conservatives to think its the Republican Jorgenson from 2006?
And blaming Melvin for the 2006 loss is just ignorant. The national mood had a lot more to do with many of these “down ticket” races than the actual campaigns themselves. Can Melvin improve his showing by a few hundred votes and win in 2008? No doubt, and southern Arizona will be well served by his representation.
July 8th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Tim,
This election cycle is also a presidential year. If there is a strong and popular conservative Republican at the top of the ticket look for high turnout among that group. That would be a great boost for Melvin. Trouble is that the opposite scenario, a weak candidate at the top of the Republican ticket, could hurt.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
GO FRED!
July 8th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Jeffords left when Bush broke his promises to him with regard to funding for special education. Look back at the news coverage from that time. The people of Vermont continue to return him to office.
He is popular with voters in both parties because he analyzes issues and votes based on what he thinks is the proper course, not because he feels compelled to sing from some ideological hymnal foisted on him by party elders who insist on lockstep loyalty. I am suspicious of members of both parties who can’t (or won’t) think for themselves and who view getting re-elected as their highest priority.
Melvin lost because even members of his own party couldn’t abide his extremism and his cluelessness. Did you watch him at any of the forums? He was not well-versed on the issues and spent most of his time babbling about border fences, privatizing education and the need for Pima County to cozy up to the Maricopa leadership. Questions dealing with the budgetary process and other issues that take up most of the time of a legislator he was not capable of answering.
It is easy to now blame the voters and accuse Republicans of “betraying” their party. Face facts! The incumbent sat on her laurels, Melvin knocked her off in the primary and he couldn’t get a majority of votes in a district drawn for Republicans because he is a polarizing and unappealing candidate!
Please DO nominate him again!
July 8th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
It is what I like about Liberals – regardless of party. According to Wikipedia, the following was the situation of the Jeffords switch.
** On May 24, 2001, Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party, and announced his new status as an independent. Jeffords promised to vote for Democratic control after being promised a committee chairmanship by Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. He was given the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which would have been occupied by ranking minority member Harry Reid.
In 1981, Jeffords was the only Republican member of the House to vote against a bill reducing the top tax rate from 70% to 50%.
While a Republican Senator, he voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Brady Bill, the Family and Medical Leave Act, an end to the ban on gays serving in the military. In 1993, he was the only prominent Republican to support President Clinton’s unsuccessful attempt to establish a national healthcare plan. His position put him to the political left of many Democrats who had serious doubts about Clinton’s plan.
Jeffords consistently voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion, and also against a harsher line on Cuba. At the time of his party switch, the American Conservative Union had given him the lowest lifetime rating of any Republican senator. **
He had been voting with the Democrats where Al Gore was the Senate President and cast the tie breaking vote for the Democrats and Jeffords changed to keep the balance of power in the hands of the Democrats. As you see from his voting record, the only thing Republican about Jeffords was his registration. No real loss.
July 8th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Some quotes from a Washington Post article from 5/25/01, just after Jeffords left the GOP:
“Obviously we’re going to have to do a far better job of being inclusive and accommodating to differing points of view within our party,” said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) “We can’t bury our heads in the sand. . . . There must be changes. We have to really reflect very seriously as to why this happened and why we lost a good person like Jim Jeffords, who’s always been a Republican.”
“If you listen to what Jim Jeffords said today, I think the president is going to have to come back to the center, where he campaigned, and away from the right, where he governed,” said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.).
“In the past . . . the various wings of the Republican Party in Congress have had some freedom to argue and influence and ultimately to shape the party’s agenda,” Jeffords said. “The election of President Bush changed that dramatically. . . . Looking ahead, I can see more and more instances where I’ll disagree with the president on very fundamental issues — the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions, missile defense, energy and the environment, and a host of other issues, large and small.”
Sen. Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.) said he was disappointed but not angry. “As long as people take action based on principle, it’s hard to get upset with them personally,” he said.
Yes, it is true that Jeffords was a liberal Republican, just like many New Englanders. But, why did he stay in the GOP during the terms of Reagan and the first Bush? What is it about TODAY’S GOP under the leadership of G.W. Bush that causes so many lifelong Republicans to leave?
If you say it is “no real loss,” than you are content with narrowing, not broadening, your base. Again, parties that choose to become more exclusive will not hold the reins of power for long. The cases of BOTH Jeffords and Lieberman are cautionary for BOTH parties.
Why is this so hard to see and admit?
July 8th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
What I meant by “no big loss” was that he voted with the Democrats before he switched parties and he voted with the Democrats after he switched parties, therefor there was no big loss. Essentially there was no change in the actions occurring in the Senate.
President Bush had been in office for less than four months and Jeffords supposedly made a life altering change with little if any actual action having occurring in that Congress. He sold out for the Chairmanship he wanted in addition to finally admitting that he more closely aligned with the Democrat philosophy in many, many areas. This was not a one issue, or even just a social issue difference. It was across the board.
No big loss.
July 8th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Lieberman essentially disagreed with the Democrat Party on only one issue and they tried to cut his throat in an unethical manner. That is wrong.
Even though it was no big loss, the Republicans did not cut Jeffords throat in spite of his voting record.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Why does Rex say that the people of Vermont continue to return Jeffords to office? He’s not in the Senate anymore… Wierd.
As for the debates, I actually watched those on the Clean Elections website and Melvin did great, both in the primary and the general. It was too bad he lost, albeit by a few hundred votes. But given how badly the ticket around him was faring, its hard to pin that loss on him. He’ll always bear some responsibility (every candidate does), but the national ticket was destroyed (thanks Mark Foley), Munsil was a disaster, Graf was losing, and the lefties in the GOP were openly campaigning for the Democrats.
Frankly, the fact he only lost by a few hundred votes looks amazing in retrospect. Hopefully LD26 learns from its mistakes and works to elect the winners of its primaries like its supposed to, regardless of ideology.
Let’s face it, the lefties expect conservatives to vote for Hershberger just because he’s got an “R” next to his name, so they ought to do the same for Melvin.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Your last sentence is the substance of the whole thing in a nutshell.
It is very frustrating to conservatives to have Hershberger, McClure, Burns, O’Halleran, Allen, etc. go up and make private deals with the extremist left-wing governor that undercuts the Republican caucus.
In spite of that, those treacherous people expect to be supported by the Republican Party and elected just because there is an R after their name.
At the same time, they work against an Al Melvin, Don Hesselbrock, Cheryl Chase, etc with impunity. Not right and should not be accepted anymore.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:49 am
I know that Jeffords chose not to run in 2006 and was replaced by Bernie Sanders. I left a “d” off and should have typed “continued.” Nevertheless, he was a man of consistent views who held state and federal office in Vermont for many years…and as a Republican.
At least I did not misspell “weird,” Tim!
Which “lefties in the GOP” openly campaigned for Democrats? Other than Grant Woods and Jack Jewett backing Janet (which was expected when you nominate an unqualified whack job like Munsil), I don’t recall hearing about local Republicans “openly campaigning for the Democrats.” Can you cite some examples? Name names, don’t just make a charge!
Also, are you REALLY blaming Mark Foley for the national GOP’s losses??? Put the blame where it belongs, which is squarely on the shoulders of Bush, Frist and Hastert. In Arizona, go with the fact that you nominated candidates for governor and Congress who were so extreme they couldn’t win this GOP state or GOP districts. If all was so wrong for you guys, how did you re-elect Kyl…who some of you are now busily trashing…just like the Dems with Lieberman!
July 9th, 2007 at 6:55 am
Rex,
There were some Republican precinct committeemen that ended up on the Republicans for Janet list. Due to their position in the party that created some friction. I could not find any from Pima County but there were some from Maricopa that were on the list.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Rex,
I absolutely am at a loss for words when people challenge others as if they have made unsupportable statements when the proof is in the public domain. So here goes:
An incomplete list from the Janet 2006 Site
The Honorable Gerald Adams ♦ Wickenburg Mayor Ron Badowski ♦ Todd Bankofier ♦ Phoenix City Councilwoman Peggy Bilsten ♦ former Senator Linda Binder ♦ former Scottsdale Mayor Sam Campana ♦ Pat Chorpenning ♦ Pat Chorpenning Jr. ♦ former Symington and McStain staffer Max Fose ♦ former Senator Sue Gerard ♦ former McStain Chief of Staff Wes Gullet ♦ Mesa Mayor Keno Hawker ♦ former gubernatorial candidate Jim Howe ♦ Jack Jewett ♦ Scottsdale Mayor Mary Manross ♦ AGC Executive Director David Martin ♦ Margaret Mullen ♦ McStain staffer Bettina Nava ♦ Glendale Mayor Elaine Scruggs ♦ Surprise Mayor Joan Shafer ♦ Phoenix city councilman Tom Simplot ♦ former Representative Roberta Voss ♦ former Attorney General Grant Woods ♦
from info@janet2006.com
Is that enough for a cursory look??
July 9th, 2007 at 10:51 am
PK-
Your words:
“…the lefties in the GOP were openly campaigning for the Democrats.”
I acknowledged that there were Republicans for Janet because of your suicidal nomination of Munsil in my earlier post. Your words make it sound as if the GOP “lefties” were supporting Democrats across the board.
Which other Republicans supported and campaigned for other Democrats? Also, you should read what Oro Valley Dad wrote above. Doesn’t sound like there were Pima County defections, does it?
July 9th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Just to clarify – There may have been lots of Pima County defections but at least there were not elected PC’s or leaders within the party supporting the other party’s candidate.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Hershberger and his folks were telling voters to NOT vote for Jorgenson or Melvin, and if you watched those Clean Elections debates, you saw Pete attacking David more than the Democrat did. Those are some of the leftie Republicans who would rather elect a Democrat than a conservative Republican.
Were Hellon’s folks working against Melvin as well?
July 9th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Wrong again, Rex. I told you that those were the left-wing socialist Republicans who backed Democrats. Your post #19 said “Which “lefties in the GOP” openly campaigned for Democrats? Other than Grant Woods and Jack Jewett backing Janet.”
So I gave you a long list of high profile Republicans who did so from only one website, and now you are sniveling and changing the criteria because you got it handed to you in spades and don’t like it and won’t deal with it.
That is your problem. The facts are the facts and there are lots of other instances, however, since you won’t give validity to the information from the public domain that has been presented, why should anyone bother giving you more data.
You belong in the Democrat Party where the facts are inconvenient truths to be ignored or morphed into Newspeak 1984.
Have a good day. If you ever muster up the courage or integrity to admit when someone has proven that your position was wrong, I’ll blog again with you, but until then, it is a waste of time.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Other than Republicans for Janet and some of the insinuations posted above, you have no “data” to present, PK, so don’t get all high and mighty pretending that you do. The whining and sniveling is all on your end and there is an utter lack of “courage” or “integrity” as you predictably resort to name-calling and childish labeling.
All you have are conspiracy theories about liberal Republicans who are supposedly undermining your right-wing brethren. The civil war in your party is in your mind for the most part, except that you on the far right have the whip hand most of the time and it is the dwindling pack of moderates and liberals in the GOP that must deal with your exclusive practices. Even Jon Kyl and Trent Lott get skewered if they stray off the reservation.
I will admit, however, that you will see many more common sense Republicans voting for Democrats if you continue to nominate people like Melvin and Munsil. That doesn’t mean that they are openly campaigning for Democrats, as you assert, but it does imply that extremists can’t demand blind loyalty from the party faithful when it comes to their votes. Conversely, can you honestly tell me that you will vote for Hershberger if he is the GOP nominee in LD26? What about the other moderates you trashed in Post #18? Where is YOUR loyalty?
July 9th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Rex, PK referred to “Hershberger, McClure, Burns, O’Halleran, Allen”… Where are the moderates you claimed he “trashed”?
Those five are the five most liberal Republicans in the entire State Legislature. There is nothing moderate about them. They are liberals, period.
That is where your left-leanings make conversation difficult. You want us to call liberals moderates but we won’t. That’s for the Red Star and the Arizona Repugnant to do. There are moderate Republicans in the legislature (Tim Bee for instance) and neither PK nor anyone else is trashing them for being moderates. But liberal Republicans who are actively working against their own caucus do not deserve your protection.
And they don’t deserve to be promoted to moderates, no matter how badly you want to win the argument.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
I don’t have a dog in this race but just for clarity could Tim S. (the original Tim) or GOP PK, or anyone for that matter, help define what makes one a liberal, moderate, or conservative? Why is Bee a moderate and not a conservative? Why is Allen a liberal and not a moderate? Just wondering and interested in the different ideas.
Thanks!
July 9th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
It is in the eye of the beholder.
Most self-proclaimed moderates are really liberals in my opinion, it is just that the term almost has become as derogatory as, to use a term you use, RINO in the politically correct world and they do not wish to be called a liberal.
Some self-proclaimed conservatives are really moderates, in my opinion, as they are only conservative on fiscal issues, for instance. I would call them fiscal conservatives, but to be called conservative as an overall description, I think that it should not be only about part of the person.
Other people have a different measuring stick and there is no absolute right or wrong, it is the personal perception as to how to apply the term.
I will disagree with their perception and do so strongly at times, but there is no strict dictionary definition that can be absolutely applied to people that all will agree with.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
A great question Ann, and one which would really help things if folks were using the same definitions.
Allen is liberal on social issues (guns, marriage, abortion, school choice, etc.) which is to say that she favors government over the individual, is pro-abortion (extremely so including opposition to parental notification, consent, etc. and was a board member of Planned Parenthood), etc.
Allen is liberal on fiscal issues in that she almost always opposes tax cuts and supports higher spending.
She is openly hostile to her own caucus, campaigning against them in 2006. She takes the conservative position on virtually NO issue. She used to be good on guns but even there her voting record has gone in the toilet over the last 3-4 years.
Liberal on everything = Liberal
Ron Gould? Conservative on everything = Conservative
Are you liberal on virtually everything but good on one or two things? Like, if Allen was still good on guns? Still liberal.
Are you conservative on virtually everything but bad on one or two things? Say like Jonathan Paton, who is pretty reliable on most things but really sucks on school choice? You could still be conservative.
Are you in the middle? A moderate? Like a Tim Bee who is just decent on spending but doesn’t fight for tax cuts? Supports convention centers in Phoenix so long as Tucson gets one too? A porker, but not as offensive a porker as a Bill Konopnicki? You spend too much but you don’t meet in back rooms with Democrats to plot strategy on how to screw your own caucus like Jennifer Burns? You are conservative on many social issues (as Bee is) while your connections to local school districts lead you to an anti-school choice position (as Bee has)? Well then, if you’ve got a genuine mix of conservative and liberal positions, then you end up considered a moderate.
Want to score it? That seems to work well. Think of it as a 100 point score. 100 is the best, conservative on everything. Most people will never score that! 0 is the worst, liberal on everything. Most people will never score that either! Let’s say 75 and up is conservative, 60-74 is center-right, 41-59 is moderate, 26-40 is center-left, and 25 and less is liberal.
Work for you? You’ll find Carolyn Allen, Jennifer Burns, Pete Hershberger and a few others scoring 25 or less. You’ll find Ron Gould, Jack Harper, Russell Pearce, Karen Johnson and quite a few others scoring 75 or more. I’m not sure about Bee, but he’ll be in the 55-70 range, so more likely center-right than straight moderate.
Lastly, I would point out that there really isn’t a moderate ideology on issues. You are either protecting the individual (conservative) or not (liberal). You are either growing government and reducing freedom (liberal) or shrinking government and increasing freedom (conservative). You are either protecting families and our moral and national fabric (conservative) or not (liberal). Your overall voting record might be considered moderate because it is a mix of conservative and liberal votes. But there are no moderate votes. Its like being a little bit pregnant. You either voted right or wrong. You get to vote Yes or No, not Maybe or Sometimes.
Several groups have scorecards which you can use to help you categorize folks. On social issues there is CAP, the Arizona Family Project, Planned Parenthood, and a gay group whose name I can’t remember (GLAD?). On tax issues there is the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers. On gun issues there are several groups including the NRA, GOA, ASRPA and others. You know which groups lean conservative or liberal, so if all of the conservative groups have Pete Hershberger and Carolyn Allen ranked at the bottom, you know you’re dealing with liberals. If they all have Ron Gould or Jack Harper at the top, then you’re talking about conservatives.
Long enough answer for you? I hope so, ’cause I’m exhausted!
July 9th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Tim,
A fantastic synopsis.- just delete mine on this subject, yours is so much better!
Can I have license to use it in other arenas?
July 9th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
By all means! If you can trim the fat on it, it could probably work in shorter form.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Thank you, Tim S. it was very clear and the issues to which you ascribed values are the same as I would have considered. I appreciate your time and skill; it does seem that as this medium attracts more and more users we will need to be very clear.
From now on, I think we should reference the Tim Scale instead of having debates over if someone is or isn’t a conservative. Tim, you do not get extra points in the debate for printing the scale. Sorry. But, in case GOP PK and I cannot agree, you can be the tie breaker. Geez Louise, what did I just set myself up for!?
Thanks again, Tim.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
We can tell people the “S” is for Solomon!
July 10th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Rex is absolutely right on is position that you are shifting your party so far to the right that it is a smaller and smaller tent.
A few argued that national trends killed you, not your candidates or ideology. Did you ever stop to think that:
a) the national trend is a shift of ideology away from conservatism as you all define it?
b) that the national trend you speak of will be even worse for Republicans in 2008?
The big issue here is that your willingness to back a Melvin over a Hershberger is principal, but the kind of principle that will make you a minority party for many many years to come.
People right now are looking for pragmatic solutions to our economy, national and international affairs. They see the deficits you all run up in the name of freedom and how your party attacks any kind of social spending in the same breath. They see your interest and zeal for trashing members of your own party who dare to work with Democrats on issues, they also see the corruption, which continues…and the moral bankruptcy of this party that continually evokes God and Country while having its elected officials (Zitter???) do the opposite.
You won’t win in 2008…not if you sell out Hershberger like you did Hellon.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Thanks Kral for your Democrat advice. We trust you completely not to mislead Republicans, of which you are not one. Why would a left-leaning Dem lie, eh? Here’s an idea: We’ll select our nominee, you select yours, and we’ll see you next November, alright?
July 11th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Kral,
We love your input and hope that you continue as one of our readers and commentors. After all blogging is a numbers game like all other media businesses but please remember as a conservative site we are not capable of selling out Hershberger since we never supported him in the first place. I know some days it is hard to distinguish this site from an official party page but there are actually some subtle differences.