Wed 19 Sep 2007
Former State Representative, Laura Knaperek, has announced her intention to seek the CD 5 Congressional Seat currently held by Democrat, Harry Mitchell. Laura currently serves as the Executive Director of United Families International, a Mesa-based pro-family organization but has a long track record of service in the State House.
Mitchell won the seat in 2006 in a political anomoly when the voters decided not to renew their contract with JD Hayworth.
This is likely to be a very interesting primary race with a handful of Republicans battling for the GOP nod. State Representative Mark Anderson, has already announced the formation of an exploratory committee. Washington Lobbyist, Jim Ogsbury, jumped in the race over a month ago. Meanwhile, Maricopa County Treasurer, David Schweikert, will make his announcement momentarily.
Republicans outnumber Democrats in Congressional District 5 so this race will break hard for the Republican once the primary is over. The battle will come down to who can raise the most money and force his/her opponent to spend it first. For conservative candidates, its a game of conservation.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Rumor has it she’s another Nathan Sproul candidate. Don’t feel bad for her though, unlike Tim Bee, who deserves better, Knaperek knows who and what she’s getting and they deserve each other. Come on Schweikert, give us somebody to root for!
September 20th, 2007 at 12:05 am
The article says she runs “a small political consulting firm”? She just lost a year ago, so how small is this thing? Does she have any clients? And wouldn’t a political consultant know that if you can’t beat your opponent in your own backyard, you ain’t gonna beat him in the rest of the district either?
September 20th, 2007 at 4:18 am
Nathan has to find another avenue to make his expenses since he does not have direct access to the State Party coffers anymore. He is the most successful consultant in Arizona – in getting consulting fees for losing efforts.
Laura’s sorry track record as treasurer in the Liddy administration of the county party should make everyone afraid – very afraid. She is one of the few women with a Napoleonic complex. The UFI gig is just another Sproul/McCain shadow org. run under Matt Salmon’s wife. Gee the circle is so small.
Schweikert is head and shoulders above the crowd in this one if he doesn’t delay too long to get in. He is one of the few politicians who is both a good candidate and a good public servant in office.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Personally, I don’t really care about her clown consultant whose biggest political accomplishment is screwing the pooch on the gay marriage amendment. Laura, though, seems okay. I don’t get why she is getting into a race she really can’t win. I can see the UFI stuff going over real well in Scottsdale. She should face facts. She is a lazy candidate who is 1 and 2 in the last three elections. Not exactly what you are looking for in a candidate. Laura does realize that there isn’t any public financing in congressional races. I’m hearing that much of the money for this race will not be going to Laura.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:28 am
O.K., let’s review the facts. Laura Knaperek came within single digits of beating Harry Mitchell in District 17. That is north Tempe which is his base and also the most Democrat part of the district.
J.D. Hayworth didn’t win a single precinct in District 17 and came within a couple points of holding on to his seat. That means J.D. got blown out in 17.
Therefore, if Knaperek does as well against Mitchell in 17 as she did in 2002, she will win all of CD-5.
The math and demographics are pretty simple. Laura Knaperek is the best chance Republicans have to take back CD-5.
Schweikert is fundamentally a decent person, but a conservative woman has the best chance.
Go Laura!
September 20th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Hmmm…she has more name recognition than the other candidates already. It will depend on how much money she has as well. She is facing an incumbent, and as I said with Bee, only about 5% of incumbents on average lose their bid for re-election to the house. Mitchell will be very well funded, and to most (even some in his party), he is no liberal. With both Bee and Mitchell, you will need an enormous amount of money to overcome name recognition, funding, and service to the district. Both Mitchell and Giffords, to most, are reasonable. It will be very hard for voters to shift horses.
The worry that the GOP will have is how to raise all the money necessary to get back CD5 and CD8…and then protect the open seat Renzi is vacating…and then there is the hapless, hysterical, but serious primary challenge to Flake by Pearce.
Just how much money do you all have? How is it going to look spread all over the place? Last, those who occupy the power seats in the GOP have clearly angered folks like McCain and Kyl…who also have a lot to say about the spiggots that control the dough.
I think you all are going to get sucked into pouring a lot of effort into Mitchell and Giffords…while also pouring a lot of effort into the Renzi seat…and in the end, you won’t do well enough with any of the seats.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Laura,
Obviously you like Laura and that’s fine. But your analysis is just plain wrong. Hayworth didn’t lose the race because of district 17, he lost it because he underperformed in Scottsdale. Second, Laura’s performance in 2002 was not good. This was a good year for Republicans, District 17 was a Republican majority district and Laura lost by nearly 10 points. This is not a sign of strength against Mitchell. Laura’s performance in 2006 was largely lackluster and she lost to two relative political newcomers. I am willing to give her a pass on the ’06 race because of the environment that year, but not the ’02 race where at the very least she should have made it closer. As for your claim that a conservative woman has the best chance, again probably wrong as applied to Laura whose record in the Legislature and time at UFI will make it very easy to define her as a hard right social conservative. When a social conservative represented LD8, she always underperformed in the general relative to her seat mates. It’s not to say she couldn’t win, but a candidate, like Laura, who will be easy to define this way will drain votes in the general in Scottsdale. But keep you chin up, your not alone in your belief that Laura would be the best candidate for the Republicans, the Democrats want her to be the nominee too.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Yep…I have to say that we do want Laura as the nominee. She makes Mitchell look even more reasonable and would make some in his own party swallow hard and vote for him. What I mean by the latter comment is that there are many liberals who are disappointed with Mitchell for his vote with the GOP on the war and his vote with the GOP on extending the ability to spy on Americans.
I think when they see Laura on the other side, they will swallow hard and vote for him anyway.
If you find a moderate to face Mitchell, he will have a much harder time of it.
Either way though, you are split…again…like with Randy Graf, Hellon, and who was that guy with the flashlight again??? She will likely win if there is a split…and then you will waste a ton of money (see above) trying to get back a seat that is no longer yours to win….by doing so…you endanger Renzi’s old seat…and just maybe could find yourself in jeopardy with Flake if Pearce happens to win it.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Kralmajales,
I chuckle at your optimism that Laura will win. I think in the end, Laura’s candidacy is more the product of a two-time loser(of races, not personally)who would like be an elected officeholder again, I don’t think she has a clue where she will get the money, nor do I think there is much support for her out there. I can see her pitch now for money. “Well, yes I did lose to Harry by almost 10, but things are different now” Probably aint’ gonna get her a lot of money. In the end she probably finishes third at best.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Interesting Mike, that is what people thought down here with Huffman…and we got Graf instead.
If I may ask, who will have the backing and funds to face Mitchell effectively? Name some names. I like to be educated.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Schweikert will have the money, the track record and the personality.
But I’m going to disagree with PK’s shot at UFI. It isn’t a shadow group for Sproul and McCain, its an international group that actually does really good stuff. Sure, they probably took Knaperek on as a favor to someone, why else would she ditch them after a year to pursue her own ambitions? Hardly the act of someone who cares enough about her employers and their mission.
But their mission is real enough!
September 20th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Thats right Pamela- where JD won 0 precincts in LD 17, Laura won 27! That speaks volumes as to the people that will stay with her.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Julie,
Did Laura win the general election last year? You are comparing apples to oranges in trying to make that comparison. Ultimately, the race is won or lost in Scottsdale and Laura’s fundamental problem is that she probably will not do well there. She can be great in Tempe, and still lose the race. I think Laura’s kidding herself if she does not think her association with UFI along with some of her more controversial positions won’t be a real problem in Scottsdale. It’s the same principle JD ran into. He chose to focus his entire campaign on illegal immigration last year and this, among other things, didn’t sit well with Scottsdale voters who are generally more moderate on that issue than others. I think no one disagrees that if JD has been representing Frank’s district and pushed that line, he would have been fine. How does Laura address this? How does she move herself away from the UFI stuff and her record in the Legislature?
September 20th, 2007 at 10:36 am
BTW Julie,
In comparing apples to apples, how many precincts did Laura take against Mitchell in 2002?
September 20th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Mike,
I guess my first position, is what part of UFI do you find so controversial? From knowing Laura, I would say that her positions on children, families, and healthcare, that she has continuously advocated for have won her alot of support, and will be very favorable in Scottsdale. Tempe/LD 17 is the most Democrat part of the district. I think that once you cross her path, you can’t help but respect her. She is the real deal.
JD was a hard liner on Immigration, which evidently just did not resonate well in his campaign.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Mike- I have no idea- why don’t you ask Laura?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Julie,
You miss the point. I don’t have a problem with UFI. But I don’t think anyone will deny that fact that it will be a very useful and easy way for the Dems to paint her into the far right with the more moderate Republicans, and when I say moderate, I mean the Republicans in Scottsdale who tend to focus more on economic issues. As ED of UFI, their agenda becomes hers. Do you honestly think that every story written about her in the race won’t include a little tidbit about UFI and who is behind UFI. It’s unfair, but our papers are what they are. It happened to Munsil with CAP, it will happen to Laura with UFI.
As for her positions, I spent all of about 10 seconds searching Google for Knaperek and Children. What popped up? A story about Laura trying to keep CPS from taking children out of their homes. An admirable position, I would argue. In the Dems hands, it becomes, Laura Knaperek wants to keep abused children with their abusers. It’s unfair, but that’s what will happen. And it will be effective.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Mike,
I don’t think that there is anything wrong for someone to work for something that they believe in.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that Schweikert is very personable and probably a great guy, but I am wary to how he can stack up to Mitchell if he won the general. Nor do I think that he will have the funding.
I just re-read your first comment, I think that you need to realize that LD-17 has grown Democrat by leaps and bounds. You can’t blame that on her as a lackluster candidate. Laura is a smart and tough campaigner. Sometimes the district in which you live in changes, and LD 17 has grown more and more Democrat. If she were to ‘change with the district’ then she would be compromising on what her values are.
I just think that given this dynamic- to beat Harry Mitchell, you need a smart woman who can relate to the district.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Julie,
I think you and I are looking at this race differently. I, personally, have no problem at all with what Laura is/has supported in the past. But it would be be naive to think that if I or for that matter you have no problem with it, that everyone else won’t either. That’s the conundrum Laura faces. The majority of the district is in Scottsdale and they have a different view of what they want from their Republicans. JD deviated from that when he became Mr. anti-illegal immigration, and they punished him for it. As for the district, I don’t think the 2006 race is really an indicator. However the 2002 race is. This was the first race in the new district and it was majority Republican. She lost to Mitchell by nearly 10 points. As for relating to the district, maybe she can. But the Dems will have no shortage of ammo to make it appear that she doesn’t. As for the funding question, if Laura is a good fundraiser, then why take the public financing? Many of her former colleagues never took it including some in tough races.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
David is sending out tax statements this week in which he will be trying to deliver bad news while laying the blame on others. It is not his fault, but his job this month will be about bad news (no bad p.r.?). Also, County Treasurer is not a role that translates to a congressional race. He will have name i.d. and a keen sense of the voting demographics in the district, but I don’t see him moving voters with his force of personality. Laura is too conservative in some respects and too liberal in others. Does that make her a moderate? Or just a political opportunist. I vote opportunist. Ultimately, the race will be won by the candidate who connects with voters. I things Ogsbury has a chance because he is the only one that speaks like the old-time version of Arizona Goldwater politics, which still resonates here.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
The real test will be how the candidates stack up against each other in the primary and what carries over to the general. There is still a lot of time for Harry’s true record to be established and it will be the thing against which all other is measured. He could very well be his own undoing.
If they don’t pave the way for Harry’s campaign in the primary by attacking each other rather than building themselves up, they will have a huge amount of the work done. If it is an intra-party bloodbath, Mr. Mitchell goes to Washington…again.
Side by side, Schweikert and Laura will both be social conservatives, that one is a draw. Scottsdale is no longer a factor in the primary, except women do very well in Scottsdale. She is a woman with greater name recognition and a base of support in the district. She is a very likable person with some strong support that knows how to raise money. Ditto for Dave on the last but Laura wins overall. I like Mark Anderson; he is a very kind and good man. But… the Moonie thing is his downfall with the voters. When the DNC gets a hold of that, it will make the crosshairs campaign look like child’s play. Ogs, well, again a good guy with some baggage that just doesn’t make it the right time.
The one who knocks on the most doors, makes the greatest impact in the community, and can find one issue that will resonate with the voters is the winner; it must be an issue in addition to immigration. JD proved it alone is not enough. I think it can easily be Laura.
In the general, a social conservative against someone who votes with big government Pelosi, JD didn’t have that to use. Harry will have his record to either defend or use as a reason to send him back. How closely it aligns with the majority of voters, or how closely they are led to believe it aligns or doesn’t, will move the majority.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Hope nobody minds using some actual facts in the discussion. LD 17 is not the battleground in this race. Hayworth almost lost 17 in 2004. Net differential for Hayworth from 2004 to 2006 in 8 was 23,000 (won by 29,000 in 2004 only by 5,000 in 2006); in LD17 differential was 11,000 (won by 1,000 in 04; lost by 10,000 in 06); in LD20 the differential was 18,000 (won by 14,000 in 04; LOST by 4,000 in 06). You don’t ignore 17, but you can afford to lose it and frankly if you only lose it by 10,000 again, we’re probably in good shape.
But, we have to make sure R’s vote R. So, Mike I would add the R’s in Ahwatukee along with the R’s in Scottsdale who are probably a little more focused on economic issues than social.
As far as Julie’s concern about funding. I think the candidate is going to largely have to self-fund. Since our primary is so late, the idea that the National party is going to spend $3 million on CD5 again to try to reclaim a seat is fantasy. They spend money to retain seats and to pick up in a place where they’ve been able to clear the primary (i.e. Bee (hopefully)). Whoever comes out of the primary in CD5 is going to need a poll that shows them within striking distance pretty quick out of the primary if they’re going to tap into major dollars.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Yes Ann, Scottsdale does factor into the primary, it’s the single largest source of Republican voters in the district Name recognition for Knaperek? You actually think state legislators have any real kind of name ID that gives them an advantage in a primary against candidates who can raise money? Ever wonder why, at least on the Republican side, we send very few legislators to Congress? People don’t know who their legislators are so in most cases it doesn’t give them any real advantage. As for Laura, why wasn’t she able to make the “connection” you refer to with the voters last year? Or 2002 for that matter. Laura isn’t even batting .500 in her last three races. Only a real Knaperek partisan would try and push the idea that a two time loser (including to the incumbent) is the one to go with.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Sounds like this one will be quite a battle then. I still think it is “much ado about nothing” and is likely to direct needed GOP funds from other races.
I agree very much with Walter about the candidate having to self-fund. That will make it a hard hard race against an incumbent, if he is right. I also think Walter underscores my point about funds and where they will be going. The RNC is likely to fund open seat races and will be defending many more seats than Democrats will this time around…due to resignations, retirements, etc.
As a result, the normal pool of GOP money is going to have to go to protecting seats from being lost and into the open seat races like Renzi’s. They are going to have to think very very hard about whether to invest to take back a seat like Mitchell and Giffords.
Walter’s point about Bee without primary challenge, to me, means that they will look at him to self fund.
Last, after the Graf/Huffman/Hellon fiasco, I look for the RNC to think very hard about the state of the party in this state and about where their money will be going. When folks like Pearce take on Flake in a primary, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be some headscratching going on in Washington when it comes to whether it is worth it.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Obsbury is the strongest? Yikes John… Do you really think 2008 is the year to run an earmark lobbyist for Congress?
September 20th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Plugged In – Bob Schuster
Bob Schuster is Southeast Valley editorial page editor for The Arizona Republic.
Laura Knaperek could unseat Harry Mitchell
click to enlarge
click to enlarge
It’s official. Former Republican state legislator Laura Knaperek from Tempe is running against Democratic U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, who ousted Republican J.D. Hayworth in an upset last year. Several possible contenders in the GOP primary have surfaced, but Knaperek would be the most formidable, in my opinion. And although Mitchell has the advantage of incumbency, Knaperek could beat him.
Although Mitchell, a popular former mayor of Tempe, would beat Knaperek in his hometown, where Dems and Repubs are evenly mixed, Mitchell isn’t as well known in the rest of the district, which has a 140,000 to 90,000 Republican registration advantage over Democrats. There are more Independents in the 5th Congressional District – 95,000 – than Democrats.
Knaperek is as personable and hard-working as Mitchell and has a solid record of fiscal conservatism, which is critical to luring back Republicans disenchanted with the former GOP Congress’ spending orgy. She worked hard in the Legislature on education and social issues such as reforming Child Protective Services.
If Knaperek makes it to the general election the deciding issue could be Iraq. Mitchell has parsed that and other issues carefully so as not to come off as a wild-eyed liberal. But if Knaperek takes a hard-line hawkish stance amid growing public sentiment that the Iraqis need to get their own house in order, Mitchell likely would skate to a second term.
What do you think?
September 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
I have to admit, it is quite interesting to say that Ogsbury is the strongest. He was a lobbyist- and represented Tri-Advocates: Trial Lawyers. And from what I heard, in person, he doesn’t make much of a presence.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
If I had to put money on it- My money is on Knaperek. I just got my property tax bill, and I am too upset to want to look at Schweikert’s name right now.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I just got a call from a client wanting me to help him understand how his taxes increased from $87.12 on vacant, undeveloped land to $2,440.34. Keith Russell might be responsible for the bill but the Maricopa County Treasurer is who they pay. You can bet David will have his name in the news more than a few times in coming weeks. If my client is any indication, the memory will be of that guy who was part of the greatest tax increase in the history of the world!
September 20th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Dan,
Are you really that stupid about property tax bills? All Schweikert does, as the counties banker is send out the bills. He doesn’t set the tax rate and he doesn’t set the assessment. If your upset about your property tax bill blame you school district, or your special taxing district, or your city or town, they are the ones who determine your property taxes. But don’t blame Schweikert for simply sending out the bills.
As for you Ann, notwithstanding Dan’s showing of his lack of understanding about property taxes, do you really think people are that stupid as to actually blame Schweikert. Do you think they can’t read their bill and see who is taxing them. Are they illiterate? Or are you just trying, as a Knaperek fan, to take a cheap shot at Schweikert.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
If it is Laura Knaperek I’ll have to vote for Harry for the send time. I lost total respect for JD during the last race and have never had any respect for Laura.
The only Republican woman who has any chance at all of winning is Michelle Reagan. Especially, a primary with a boatload of far right wack-jobs.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Response to Walter who wrote, “…the idea that the National party is going to spend $3 million on CD5 again to try to reclaim a seat is fantasy.”
I’d disagree. The NRCC (the same body that stepped in the doo doo in CD 8 last cycle) probably won’t play in the primary. However, they should sink dough into the general. When looking at the map, there just aren’t that many districts occupied by a D with a registration advantage of upwards of 15%. This one is worth fighting for.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Jim, no I am not that stupid and I am sure Dan isn’t either. You however need a nap, boy are you cranky! Back off a bit and get the point. I have no reason or desire to take a cheap shot at Schweikert. He is a stand up guy with a solid record of service. Nobody every said the Treasurer was responsible for the tax bill; however the tax payment goes to the treasurers’ office. Joe average may very well see it as part and parcel. When others get the same news my client did anger is sure to ensure, you can bet the media will be all over this and Dave will be interviewed for sure, as will County Supervisors and Keith Russell. But, there is no way he can keep his name from being linked to what amounts to, in my clients’ case, a tax bill that is 28 times last year with no changes in the property.
This is politics. It all counts. The guy who collects the taxes is not going to get a pass just because he isn’t the guy who decides how much the taxes are going to be. This is a side note to the whole picture but Schweikert should be ready for the fallout.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:42 am
Most of you are about as uniformed about the recently released property tax bills as could be expected. Nothing I have seen posted on this website is even close to reality. So let me try. First, the County Treasurer has nothing to do with the tax bills, other than sending them out with his name on it. That’s it. Second, the County Assessor does not set the tax rates, he only assesses the value of the property. And, for the 2007 tax bill we are all just getting in the mail, those notices of value were mailed to everyone in the County back in February 2006. Even further, those values are based upon market data from the third quarter of 2004 through the second quarter of 2005. So while we can argue all day about the role of the County Assessor, and the accuracy of his valuations, the truth is that Mr. Russell correctly captured the market during that time, which is why we saw the huge increases in Full Cash Value (an average of 53 percent). Fast forward to today — despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, I predict that the average tax bill went up somewhere between 5-18 percent. In some places, believe it or not, the tax bills went down. Furthermore, I also predict that the majority of any one individual’s tax bill increase will be based on the primary property value. This would include the ginormous bond increases in Phoenix and other cities across the valley, as well as a lack of restraint from special district taxing jurisdictions. This, my friends (along with school districts, which make up a majority of one’s tax bill) is where we should focus our righteous indignation. The ability of these special districts to tax the public without restriction, limitation, or decency, is frightening. I welcome any comments to my correction of the inaccuracies being promoted on this website.
By the way, I like most of the candidates for this race. It should be interesting! Either way, we should all be focusing on making Harry a one-termer in Washington. Let’s make him go back home and teach high school government again.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:49 am
And Ann, the only way your client’s tax bill could have gone up “28 times” is if he had some kind of special status, such as an agricultural one, which has been removed from the property. In fact, this is probably what happened in your case, most likely due to the fact that your client failed to timely file his required agricultural documents. Have him contact the assessor’s office to have this corrected and/or submit the proper documentation. Nobody’s tax bill can go up “28 times” without a reason like this; it’s just not legally and/or realistically possible pursuant to law.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:45 am
One small point – if anyone thinks that the average voter will remember next August or September the name of the county treasurer who was the elected person running the office that received their tax payment a year earlier on a bill that was prepared by the county assessor six months prior to now – well, the average voter doesn’t even know what happened a week prior to the vote and many times they do not even seem to know their own name.
The tax bills are a pain in the pocketbook, not a scandal involving fraud or worse.
Schweikert is the most competent, the hardest worker, the most technically knowledgeable and the public servant with the longest record of quality public service who has learned to be a very polished candidate with a good amount of do-re-mi on hand and in the wings. Seems like a winning combination to me.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:43 am
GOP PK, all that you said is true, except that Schweikert will be running in a primary next year to be held right during the time that next year’s taxes are sent out. With that in mind, I’m sure he is hoping for something less nasty with his name on it then. IN fact, I’m sure that has alot to do with his efforts at revising the tax bill this year, so he can better explain and defend himself.
Personally, I think he should resign and run for the seat. If he did that, I think he would, without question, win the primary.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:00 am
Someone above said this about Mitchell:
“Although Mitchell, a popular former mayor of Tempe, would beat Knaperek in his hometown, where Dems and Repubs are evenly mixed, Mitchell isn’t as well known in the rest of the district, which has a 140,000 to 90,000 Republican registration advantage over Democrats. There are more Independents in the 5th Congressional District – 95,000 – than Democrats.”
I would stronly question the claim that Mitchell is not well known in the district outside of Tempe. You are highly underestimating the name recognition of sitting Congressman…versus that of any of the candidates you have listed. Laura has higher name rec. than any…and it brings negatives as we can see here.
As for the GOP registration advantage, I would worry very much about how many will turn out in mass for Laura. I would also worry severely at the fact that new registrations in the state are leaning heavily Democrat and more so independent. Mitchell will be popular with independents…independents in polls are leaning heavily Democrat…and Mitchell will undoubtably bring his base.
This race will be a waste of your dough…for sure…but go ahead…
September 21st, 2007 at 11:05 am
GOP PK- I’m not sure that your any of your assessments should ever be given any consideration and certainly no merit. I’m still laughing at your ridiculous conspiracy theory that McCain started UFI as a shadow organization! I’m sure he was holed up somewhere thinking about policy and running for president and then had his ‘ah ha’ moment: “I’m going to start a Mormom Shadow Organiztion!”
September 21st, 2007 at 11:06 am
http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/0920knaperek0921-ON.html
Julie,
Thank you for the link. We did remove the cut and paste part because the article is available online. SA
September 21st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
To use Dan’s words not mine, heading up a “mormon shadow organization” will go over like gangbusters in a general.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Schweikert is not responsible for the size of the property tax bills. But the job of his office is to collect. There is no escaping that piece of bad news. Will people forget that David had his name on the tax bill? Yes. Will they appreciate or understand his explanations of where the money is going? No. Will they remember his name — fondly or unfondly — based on his years of public service? Doubtful. The key is in the campaigning and the articulation of the need to replace Harry and the ability to sell oneself. On that basis David has a good shot, but not that much better than Jim, Laura or Mark. David’s advantage might be organization. But that can only go so far. Assuming “equal” organizational capability, presence, likability and credibility are the keys to winning undecided voters.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I wish my tax bill only went up 18%, I have 2 properties, 23% on one and 28% on the 2nd. We should all be angered!!
September 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
In #36, GOP PK writes, “..the average voter doesn’t even know what happened a week prior to the vote and many times they do not even seem to know their own name.”
I find it ironic that this point is being made now regarding Mr. Schweikert, the candidate PK supports.
This blog is all inside baseball all the time(the neverending talk of Pullen vs. the establishment), yet most posters on here think any and all of the analysis has the pulse of the average voter.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Chip- you are misinterpreting me! Read to comment # 3: and GOP PK’s site! I just thought that was ridiculously hilarious- I’m still laughing!
September 21st, 2007 at 4:31 pm
John,
I guess your analysis is right. After all, I seem to recall every four years angry taxpayers ignoring their local officials who raised their taxes and coming straight at all of the county treasurers in Arizona who collect them. That’s why they continue to raise taxes because they know that the stupid taxpayers will blame the treasurer for it. Right? Do you really have so little faith in the intelligence of the average citizen? Do you think they don’t know who is responsible for their taxes? Do the majority of Arizonans have trouble reading? I guess in your world they do.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
azslim, thanks for the explanation and while I appreciate it, I understand the tax process. I was not speaking to the tax bill directly (I have since found an error in the assessment) but to the impact it will have on the connotation of “treasurer” when it comes time to vote.
According to the county 2007 valuation increases, the majority of central Maricopa County will see a 45% or greater increase. People will be mad and they will stay mad. This is not like other tax hikes, this one they recall every month when they make their house payment that increased by a $100 or so. Next year at this time, it will hit again.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:38 am
azslim,
You are almost right – the Primary will be done at least two weeks prior to any tax bills being sent out next year.
Gerry,
I think that the blogs do have the pulse of what is happening NOW, overall. That should not be construed to mean that what is said here is an accurate barometer of what the average voter will think a year from now.
As to the Pullen vs establishment issue, these are not exactly average voters. The importance of those interactions – add in the grass roots activists – is how they work with each other in a united manner during the last 90 days of the election cycle, the amount of money available, and the passion of the activists.
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I think its safe to say, at least judging from this thread, that Laura Knaperek does not unite the party. Whatever other conclusions you might reach here, that is something that really matters!
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Oh Tim….come on. About half way thru what is now 50 posts we went deep into the weeds with the tax talk. With the possible exception of Tim Bee, name me one candidate for any position that would have no discussion. Isn’t that what we do here?
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Now that you’ve taken this thread into the “tax weeds,” one can view Laura’s voting record on taxes by visiting the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers website. Voting records for all the legislators are located there. And if you were to choose a candidate based soley on their tax record who lives in the district, Colette Rosati tops the list. (http://aztaxpayers.org/Finalissimo_Chart_2006.pdf)
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
So judge it from the first 25 Ann, or visit previous threads which detail Laura’s ugly and personal attacks on our now State Party Chairman. Or her inability to even come in second in the last house race behind a guy who was carpetbagging so bad he was staying in a hotel room in the district. Ten years of incumbency and you can’t finish 2nd? Not a good resume for a real race where 1st is the only thing that matters.
If you want to win this race, find someone who can bring folks together. Somebody like Schweikert, Hatch-Miller, etc.
September 23rd, 2007 at 3:40 am
Dan
Get a grip. When you stop laughing about something you misinterpreted, think about the fact that UFI is a national organization that does very fine work. In Arizona it also does good work, but, here, it is in the hands of people who have a history of supporting McCain. I never said that McCain set up UFI, only that here in AZ the main players are McCainiacs. That is undeniable – and not funny.
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:55 am
My point still stands as does my request to name me one candidate that won’t illicit the same sort of responses. For that matter, any thread with more than a handful of posts that didn’t have some pretty significant differences in opinions. I previously said the possible exception could be Tim Bee, but while you are looking back for ammunition on Laura you will find some on Tim, too. I won’t throw stones at Dave or Jeff that has absolutely nothing to do with my assertion, but if a thread pops up with those names on it you can bet it will have its share of dissenting opinion on the ability of those candidates to be the correct candidate to oppose AND win against Mitchell.
The issues on this thread had very little to do with her as a candidate, actually if you follow DSW’s advice and check the tax record she is in the same category as Tim Bee, John Huppenthal, both Weiers, and Mark Anderson. The entire past history of elections won and lost is a mixed bag of changing registration numbers, redistricting, and ugly hit mail pieces that folks with greater voter majorities barely survived. If losing an election or two disqualifies you to be a leader in the party, or discredits any efforts in the future, then we are in big trouble and Laura is not alone.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:09 am
Ann, I do not know why you think Tim Bee is such a uniting force. I can only assume that you do not live in the Tucson area. The quiet whispers off the record are that he is going to lose and part of the reason is his inability to unite the party. See
http://www.wakeuparizona.net/timbeenathansproul.htm
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 am
Its not just a question of losing one or two elections, but if you lost them to the person you’re trying (again!) to beat, it becomes very relevant.
And objections that we might hear to Schweikert or Hatch-Miller would be along the lines of “his name was on my tax bill” or “he moved into the district to run”. Sure, those are objections, but they’re hardly the kind that would split a party’s support for a candidate the way Laura’s behaviour early this year did. She exposed herself as someone who is vicious and dishonest in pursuit of her goals, and that is just what she was willing to do to her fellow Republicans. To date, she has never apologized or even admitted wrongdoing.
That is the kind of stuff that divides a party and we won’t be forgetting what she did.
Schweikert, Hatch-Miller, Anderson and even Ogsbury are all unburdened by similar taint.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:45 pm
It’s way too ironic that the disqualifying offense is her loss to Harry and that she was on the side of the opposition to Pullen for chair saga considering Mitchell is the very Dem that Pullen gave to in the general against a Republican. And because of that she is the bad one in the bunch? Go figure!
Other than the losses to Mitchell in an LD, not a CD with a different voter make-up, and offending the Pullen crowd (half minus 2 of the state committeemen could be accused of the same, she just had the guts and gumption to go public) what has she done to discourage support?
She votes in accordance with some of the poster children for the AZ Republican Party, she has a solid work ethic, communicates well, and as far as I know she has never been anything but a loyal Republican. I can’t say I agree with her on every issue but given the other candidates who also may be great guys, she’d be my pick.
Kevin,
I like Tim Bee and think he is a very effective guy. I used him as the example because he is fairly safe on this site. The anti-Gabby fever has been sufficient cover for any transgression for which he might be found guilty in granting him a pass. That is about as unified as you can expect in this party in this state right now.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:03 am
GOP PK- United Families International does fine work across the nation (agreed), but its national headquarters is based here in Arizona. Knaperek is the ED of the national group, not just the AZ chapter. I hope that I cleared things up for you.
Thanks-