On Monday, June 28, 2010, conservative talk show host and best selling author delivered a scathing monologue on John McCain at the same time he reaffirmed his commitment to and endorsement of JD Hayworth.
I live in CD 3, so I am intensely interested in interviewing the CD 3 candidates. When I first met Bob Branch at the LD 7 meeting, I remember thinking that his lack of an FEC report meant he didn’t have a snowball’s chance of winning. I’ve got to say, I was THOROUGHLY impressed with Mr. Branch in this interview. At the VERY LEAST, the voters should research Mr. Branch. I want to wish him a lot of luck in this race. One way or the other, I hope he becomes a force in Arizona politics for years to come. We need people like him in government.
Last night on Roundtable Politics, Rachel Alexander, James Allen and I interviewed Doug Ducey, the founder of Cold Stone Creamery and candidate for Arizona State Treasurer. Doug will be on Grassroots Interviews on July 29. The interview with Treasurer candidate Thayer Verschoor can be found in Grassroots Interviews’ archives. Barbara Leff has been invited to come on Grassroots Interviews but has refused. Guess she doesn’t want to talk about her record.
The Maricopa County Attorney’s race is one of the most important races this election season, yet it has received almost no coverage from The Arizona Republic. It’s a critically important office, but it’s an interesting race also because it pits conservative Republican Bill Montgomery against a couple of RINOs, Rick Romley and Boyd Dunn.
Since being appointed temporary County Attorney, Romley has rolled out the red carpet for illegal aliens in Maricopa County with his amnesty plan. Boyd Dunn rolled out some red carpet of his own. He’s the Mayor of Chandler, which has long been a sanctuary city despite Dunn’s weak, 11th hour attempt to change this in order to cover up a bad record with “tough on illegal immigration” talk in an election year.
Montgomery had a pretty powerful hit on Romley last week, pointing out how many opponents of our employer sanctions law are raising money for Romley and how Romley seems to be responding to their desires by scrapping workplace enforcement of immigration laws. Unfortunately this was not enough to break through the Republic’s embargo on press coverage of this race.
With decent name ID, the less news about the race the better for Romley. This is surely why Romley is ducking debates. Is the fact that Romley’s soft on illegal immigration policies are in line with the Republic’s views driving the Republic’s coverage, or lack thereof, of the race?
Tonight, I interviewed former legislator and Congressional District 1 candidate Rusty Bowers. I wish him a lot of luck in his race!
by Michael Halliday
At the upcoming debates between JD Hayworth, John McCain and Jim Deakin on June 16th in Phoenix and the17th in Tucson, Republican Senatorial hopeful Deakin says he is “…pleased to be part of the American experience and look forward to the opportunity of exposing the records of two entrenched politicians.” Sounds promising, but coming from an Ivory Tower position of invincible inexperience; hence, no real appreciable record with which we can contrast him to the other candidates, I’m more than a little interested in what his proposed real-world solutions are to Arizona’s spiraling list of intractable problems.
So, how do we realistically assess him? We go with what we know.
What we do have is a record of Jim’s promises and words to describe his positions on several issues. So, let’s focus on what he’s telling us he’s about. Number one on his list, from his own campaign website is: “Protect Freedom.” Sounds good on the face of it. Who doesn’t want to protect freedom? Jim then goes on to say, under this rubric, “Government regulation used to control individual freedom and liberty must be stopped.” Then, “Government oversight to protect individual freedom and liberty is required.”
Sounds OK at first blush; however, aren’t regulation and oversight the same thing? Or, can you have one without the other? What oversight, specifically? What regulation, specifically? Who, what, why, where, when, how? In other words, nice glittering generalities but no meat or substance to Jim’s proposal is given. However, it sounds populist, distinctly Tea Partyish in flavor, and rather appealing to our raw emotions.
Under the heading “Protect Freedom,” Jim reiteratively paints with a broad brush and asserts two mutually exclusive goals that seem to contradict one another: “win against terrorism” and “end the Patriot Act.” Isn’t the primary goal of the Patriot Act to aid us in the war against terrorism? Again, on the face of it, it sounds good. However, I ask once more “who, what, where, why, when, how?” But at the core of it, this is what bothers me. Jim says he wants to win against terrorism (we all do) but then seemingly takes the reckless, liberal ACLU position of ending the Patriot Act altogether.
Does Mr. Deakin want to end the whole Patriot Act or only those portions that potentially infringe upon the rights of US citizens? Are there any good aspects to the act? Once again, it sounds like he’s trying to have his cake, “Government regulation…must be stopped” and eat it too, “Government oversight…is required.” Would someone please open the window of reality and let in a fresh draft of common sense because I think Jim’s been breathing the rarified hot air of empty rhetoric and sloganeering a little too long; hence, he sounds a bit light headed, and possibly out of touch with reality.
Let’s focus in a little on the Patriot Act that Jim, along with the ultra-liberal ACLU, wants to put an end to because it’s not often that you see such a destructive organization siding with a conservative candidate of Jim’s pedigree, or should I say, one having Jim’s lack of legislative experience.
There are actually parts of the Patriot Act that are good. What we don’t need is excessive fear mongering, either for or against the Patriot Act, simply to gain votes. Terrorism is a much more serious subject than that!
Some good points of the Patriot Act are:
- It prohibits Aliens who commit money laundering from entering the U.S.
- It provides grants to first responders to help respond to and prevent terrorism.
- It provides airlines the names of suspected terrorists before they board flights.
- It prohibits any investigations on citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment.
- It provides for the enforcement of trade sanctions against communist North Korea and Taliban controlled Afghanistan.
- It provides for the much-needed employment of foreign translators for the FBI.
- An official or employee of the government who acts corruptly — as well as the person who induces the corrupt act — in the carrying out of their official duties is subject to being fined.
- Aliens, and their families — who are part of or representatives of a foreign organization, or any group who endorses acts of terrorism — are prevented from entering the U.S.
So, you see, to the authentic conservative mind, there are some positive aspects of the Patriot Act. However, it’s much more convenient, and intellectually lazy, to just write the whole Patriot Act off as a further step toward the implementation of the New World Order, rather than to examine its positive, security-enhancing effects. I have my own personal objections to parts of the Patriot Act, as do most patriotic Americans, but maturity, experience and a solid grasp of the issues dictates that I not be so irresponsible as to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Jim says, “end the Fed.” That’s nice. And what to you propose to replace it with? Nothing? Does the Fed provide any good functions or are they all bad? Would you rather that we turned the printing of money over to an out of control Congress? “Balance the Federal Budget.” Again, how?
Jim seems adept, at pointing out a lot of problems while offering little in the way of practical solutions. Perhaps he’s bitten off a little more than he can chew. Maybe he will make his positions a little more clear on what he’s going to do, and how he’s going to do it, rather than simply attacking the opposition. Or, as one political blogger so aptly put it, “Please afford us an understanding of why you are a good option.”
PHOENIX, AZ- Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida from 1999-2007, today endorsed State Senator John Huppenthal for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction.
“John is a proven champion of reform and accountability in education, and I know he’s dedicated to changing the lives of Arizona students for the better,” said Bush. “John’s leadership as Superintendent will be critical to the successful implementation of reforms that can improve the quality of education in Arizona.”
“The results of Florida’s education reforms speak for themselves,” said Huppenthal. “Governor Bush is a leader who delivered on his promise to improve education and I’m honored to have his support.”
John Huppenthal is one of Arizona’s leading authorities on education issues. In addition to being the current Senate Education Chairman, Huppenthal has served for 18 consecutive years on the State House and State Senate education committees.
“Improving Arizona’s schools has been my life’s work,” said Huppenthal. “I’ve worked closely with teachers and parents on education issues for nearly two decades, so I’m very familiar with the challenges and opportunities Arizona schools face.”
For additional information, please visit www.JohnHuppenthal.com.
– 30 –
For additional information regarding Florida’s education reforms, see the Goldwater Institute’s report “On the Road to Excellence: Next Steps to Match Florida’s Success in Educating Children.“
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush with State Senate Education Chairman John Huppenthal at the Arizona State Capitol on October 1, 2010. Gov. Bush addressed a joint meeting of the House and Senate education committees on the success of Florida’s education reforms in establishing the basis for educational excellence.