Democracy is noisy and messy. We see it every day. To quote Winston Churchill: “Where there is a great deal of free speech, there is always a certain amount of foolish speech.”

We have qualified candidates competing in the Republican primary. Casting accusations, mis-truths, exaggerations and false-hoods does not raise the ethical bar. Everyone has a favorite they should be promoting based on facts not vitriol.

Sticking to the facts and taking the high road is an absolute requirement for Republican candidates. Why? Because we can defeat Giffords on the facts:

 *      Gabrielle Giffords consistently voted with Nancy Pelosi, a progressive socialist, on every critical bill, e.g., the so-called $862 billion stimulus bill (without reading it), the so-called S-CHIP $33 billion expansion of government, “Cap and Trade” bill supporting the largest tax increase on the American people, the $1 trillion Affordable Health Care for America Act (also without reading it), the $200 billion Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act (removing it from the health care bill to lower costs), and the 45% inheritance tax on estates larger than $3.5 million.

 *      In an August 11, 2009 Arizona Daily Star interview, in answer to Star question, “Why is health care such a volatile issue?”

 Gifford replied: “What I’ve seen in the last couple of weeks is that people want to have created for them a forum where they can be disruptive rather than actually providing me with information in a way that is going to give me their personal perspective and educating me on their point of view . . .It’s been a little troubling.”

 Giffords statement that people want a forum where they can be disruptive is a “straw man.”  Which people want to be disruptive? People are angry because they cannot get a straight answer from their politicians, whether in a town hall or in an interview. Dissent is patriotic. Remember Hillary Clinton’s shrill statement that dissent is patriotic? Giffords says her position is to listen to her constituents but her behavior contradicts her words.

 *      Giffords consistently claims to be a fiscally conservative blue dog Democrat but her votes on the stimulus, health care reform and “Cap and Trade” define her a progressive-socialist fully supportive of Obama’s draconian agenda.

 *      With regard to “Cap and Trade,” Giffords claimed that the bill would reduce household energy costs by 7%. In an article, “Giffords Voting Record Will Hurt Her in the 2010 Election,” published on the Sonoran Alliance (2/19/2010), I refuted her claim and demonstrated that the bill would actually increase household energy costs by 77%.

 *      This brings us to the topic of ethics: honesty and truthfulness, in this case. Gabrielle Giffords misrepresented herself to her constituents as a fiscal conservative when she revealed herself to be just another progressive-socialist.

 *      In 2003, our intelligence Chief and the Attorney General both testified that the failure of the House of Representatives to pass FISA reauthorization has left the United States and her citizens exposed. Yet Giffords voted against FISA reauthorization, potentially endangering the United States.

 *      In March 2010, Gabrielle Giffords called for a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget . . . in 2020. Her call was disingenuous. During the past year she voted for hundreds of billions of dollars in spending, driving the economy further in debt and betraying her constituents who voted for a fiscal conservative.

 Most of you are familiar with the Misery Index, which is a combination of the unemployment and inflation rates. Recently, I created the Ultimate Misery Index (UMI) that adds tax revenue and national debt as a percent of GDP. The reasons for creating the UMI were simply the rates of inflation (flat today) and unemployment do not adequately describe today’s misery.

Adding tax revenue and national debt as a percent of GDP incorporates the excessive taxation and onerous debt load we, our children and our grandchildren must carry, courtesy of President Obama, Gabrielle Giffords and the progressive-socialists in the Democratic Party.

 The average UMI for Bush I’s four year term is 86.86%. Clinton’s average UMI for his two terms in office is 90.78. Bush II’s UMI average for his two terms in office is 88.17%. President Obama, in fourteen months, has achieved a draconian UMI  of 114.13%. What is astounding is Obama has increased the UMI over the average for all three previous presidents by a whopping 28% in this short period.

This is what President Obama, Gabrielle Giffords and the rest of the progressive-socialists of the Democratic Party have done to all Americans. And this is why Republicans can beat Giffords . . .  as long as we stick to the facts and take the high road with each other.