Deconstructing Deakin: Jim Who?


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.”


Comments

  1. Jacklyn M. says:

    I’ve said it before…

    I like McCain. And I like Deakin. I’ve heard him speak a couple of times and I’m on his mailing list, he is legit.

    Hayworth is a doof. He’s a opportunist. When he was in congress it was in his best interest to vote to increase government bigger than it had ever been. Then it was in his interest to do to late night infomercials for scam companies. Etc. etc. etc.

    Now it is in his interest to say he is a conservative and for a smaller government. We remember JD.

    I’m looking forward to seeing Deakin just wiping the podium with JD and seeing a huge surge in the polls. Perhaps even to the point of beating JD in the primary. Deakin hasn’t gotten the media’s attention, but all that is about to change with the debates.

    Can I get a, “In the fullness of time…”?

    • Jacklyn,

      Can you tell us exactly how many late nite infomercials JD did?

      Can you tell us exactly how Jimmie Lee Deakin, Jr. is going to win with NO money?

      I also look forward to watching Jimmie Lee Deaking, Jr. debating against McCain and Hayworth! It will be like watching two chihuahuas yapping at JD.

  2. Michael Holliday says:

    Jacklyn M. Says:

    Now it is in his interest to say he is a conservative and for a smaller government. We remember JD.
    _____

    I suggest you slow your roll, cool your fritters, re-read what I just wrote and make an intelligent reply to my enlightening Op Ed.

    Something, say, a little more substantive in nature, like this:

    Hayworth will fight McCain’s comprehensive immigration reform plan, holds a better overall conservative record — He maintained an “A” rating from the NRA, a 100% Pro-Life voting record, a lifetime rating of 89 from Citizens Against Government Waste and a lifetime rating of 98 from the American Conservative Union—and is officially endorsed by the original North Phoenix Tea Party.

    A side-by-side comparison of Hayworth and McCain can be found here: http://www.jdforsenate.com/who-shares-your-values.

    Voila!

    Perhaps, then, people might think you’ve got something, besides Quaker Oats, between your precious ears…

  3. Jacklyn M. says:

    Oh so clever Michael. I indeed have an insane of Oats between my ears.

    Here is a little more for you then…

    Senator McCain is the most influential Republican in the Senate or the house. To replace him with an opportunist nobody, we would lose a great and powerful influencer. It’s true I don’t agree with the Senator on everything, but as I’ve heard Senator Kyl say, “Do you always agree with your spouse? And do you get rid of them when there is a disagreement?”

    JD has proven himself the opportunist, and indeed, ‘Character Matters.’ Thus, a vote for JD is a vote against the Republican party and in favor of the efforts of the left. JD will only make fools of us all. Just like he has made a fool of himself in this process of running a campaign way beyond his pedigree.

    • Jacklyn,

      Can you tell us exactly what John McCain has done for Arizona? We all know what he has done against Arizona.

  4. Pamela Mills says:

    Deakin is a shill for McAmnesty. He says he’ll support the democrat if JD wins. That’s enough for me – he can’t be the true conservative he says he is. McCain must be paying him alot to interfere in this election. JD isn’t perfect, but we know he won’t turn on AZ and become a maverick if he wins re-election.

  5. Tom Dodson says:

    If my spouse undermined the principles of common sense as often as McCain does I would get rid of her. The fact that he has himself so entrenched and drunk with power is not a reason to keep him, it is a reason to dump him. Any wonder he is so full of himself and feels no need to support the Reagan Principles he gives lip service to before voting with the democrats on endless legislation to the disappointment of any informed and caring conservative? He ran for president on “the surge” and “I was a POW.” and got creamed by a known socialist with scary friends not because Obama was so good but rather people seeing McCain’s spotty record felt they had no choice but a progressive operative on both sides. As for ending the Fed, you replace it with the system we used prior to 1911 and if we keep it we insist they open their books regularly to public examination and audit. On the Patriot Act, in the hands of a principled leader it is harmless, in the hands of Obama or a progressive it is dangerous. Let’s keep the parts that are good intelligence cooperation and scrap the rest, we don’t need to keep the intrusive provisions and the public would respond if they saw efforts to reign in the worst of the bills. I don’t believe in continuing bad policy if we need to tweak it , tweak it to respect individual freedoms. That said, I trust JD Hayworth to work for sound legislation and protect our rights as he works toward smaller government. Times are too hazardous to do on the job training, JD has been to DC and knows all too well the traps and pitfalls and how to avoid them, like my own life my the painful days were learning experiences and improved my decision-making. The time is right now for the 2010 edition of JD Hayworth and Arizona.

  6. Oberserve says:

    Yes, everything the fed does is bad. It’s nothing more than a nationalized socialist kommissar over the nation’s monetary system.

    Up until the fed, besides for dollars issued by the treasury, there was private currency which people accepted as readily and sometimes more readily than treasury dollars.

    So, yes, the government nationalized the nations monetary system and placed it under central planners which is socialism.

    Maybe Deakin doesn’t really understand it. JD sure doesn’t. I’m already a JD supporter, but you are really really nasty.

  7. Michael Holliday says:

    # Oberserve Says:
    June 29th, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    Maybe Deakin doesn’t really understand it. JD sure doesn’t. I’m already a JD supporter, but you are really really nasty.
    _____

    Actually, I’m really chilled out if you get to know me.

    Nasty how? Because I call Deakin on his stuff? How do you know JD doesn’t understand it?

    You know, there’s a lot of lies and propaganda in “patriotic” circles about the Fed. There’s a University of South Carolina econ professor that was taking on some of the nonsense coming out about the Fed and people didn’t like it.

    There’s a lot of shoddy scholarship on the far right that is tantamount to historical malpractice.

    I’m not off the block. I’ve been into politics for a while and have done some reading and study myself, i.e. Carroll Quigley, Samuel Huntington, etc.

    I’ve been battered and kicked around by the media in a REAL nasty way. This isn’t even walking the gauntlet.

    I don’t mean to come across as really, really nasty. I do mean to come across as really against amnesty.

    Better nasty than amnesty.

    I have no great love of the Fed. I know it’s a corrupt organization; however, anyone can be against something without having a realistic solution.

    That’s where the real action is at.

  8. Carlist says:

    What I really find amusing about the McCainiacs such as Jaclyn is their proclivity to stay away from specific issues and condemn J.D.for supposedly imitating the behavior of their hero!

    She’s right about one thing though, that is John McCain’s influence within the current Congress.

    And the results of that influence have been made manifest in the current state of the country both domestically and abroad!

    Bankruptcy in both cases!

    He played a major part in getting us there by “reaching out” to the Left and enabling a watered down leftist agenda to be carried out by his own party.

    And he lacks the principles or integrity to remove us from the morass!

    A cleansing is needed within the GOP and “The John” must be flushed!

  9. Michael Holliday says:

    Jacklyn M. Says:
    June 29th, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    Senator McCain is the most influential Republican in the Senate or the house. To replace him with an opportunist nobody, we would lose a great and powerful influencer.
    _____

    You’re arguing my point.

    I thought that it was, perhaps, Quaker Oats between your ears, now I’m starting to wonder if it’s something a bit more…say…whimsical. Like Lucky Charms or Count Chocula!

    Who needs a great and powerful influencer when he’s going to influence them right into giving amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens?

    He put up no great fight against Maobama and everyone knows it. He wasn’t even able to influence enough people to vote for him for President. I don’t even think he was able to influence that poor, concerned American that Obomao wasn’t an “Arab!”

    McCain’s had 28 years to get it right. We need to end his monopoly on the Senate!

    Plus, it’s an act of charity on behalf of the people of Arizona to force him get in a few good retirement years before we’re overrun by our good friends the Communist Chinese.

  10. Jacklyn M. says:

    Man, that “The John” must be flushed joke sure is a knee slapper. What does the J is J.D. stand for?

    Furthermore, you blame John McCain for the entire state of the country? That’s quite a leap! I could make the same leap. If J.D. hadn’t gotten his opportunist self into a mess with Abramoff and lost to a Democrat in a 70% Republican district, there is a very good chance they could not have passed ObamaCare in the House.

    When the GOP takes back a majority in the Senate, John McCain will be the chairman of some of the most important committees. What would J.D. be if he won? Nothing.

    All of the Congressman from Arizona that worked with him when he was in office, all support McCain. They know a strutting poodle when they see one, vs someone who will get the job done. And because you are a J.D. supporter, I’ll say it slowly that J.D. is that strutting poodle.

  11. YAWN!

    JD is quite simply…unelectable. Making Jim Deakin the whipping boy for his inability to overcome his own past is depserate.

  12. Oberserve says:

    @ Michael,

    You are arrogant and don’t really have any formal economic training, do you?

    Yes, you are nasty and no Deakin is not for amnesty.

    Like I said, I’m a JD supporter, I’m voting for him, I’ve donated to him multiple times.

    I do not like being in any kind of position that could be interpreted as defending or supporting Deakin, but your attacks, some of them completely ignorant and baseless only make JD look bad.

    And no, JD does not understand the nation’s monetary system no matter how you want to spin it.

  13. Jacklyn M. says:

    Exactly! That’s what I was trying to say.

  14. Jacklyn M. says:

    errrr, that was directed at Ann.

  15. Carlist says:

    Jacyln

    You stated that McCain was an influential leader and I concurred.

    Our difference lies in our perception of how positive that influence is!

    Do you believe that McCain-Feingold had a beneficial effect on political fundraising?

    Do you believe that if enacted McCain-Kennedy would have had a positive effect on the current immigration problems.

    Do you believe that Cap N Trade carbon taxes will enhance the economy?

    Do you believve that the tax cuts intitiated during Bush’s first term had a beneficial effect on the economy?

    Do you think it was magnanimous to turn our backs on P.O.W.’s and M.I.A.’s in Southeast Asia?

    I invite either you, Ann, Travis, “Molly”/Lisa, Horst or LD 17 to answer

  16. Michael Holliday says:

    # Oberserve Says:
    June 29th, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    You are arrogant and don’t really have any formal economic training, do you?
    _____

    Statement: “You don’t have any formal economic training…”

    Question: “do you?”

    Answer: Yes, my little chinchilla (pronounced chin-chee-ah), I most certainly do have “formal” economic training.
    _____

    You: I do not like being in any kind of position that could be interpreted as defending or supporting Deakin, but your attacks, some of them completely ignorant and baseless only make JD look bad.
    _____

    What attacks? Calling miss hissy-fit Count Chocula for brains? Ha, ha!

    Calling Deakin on his stuff? Asking simple, logical questions?

    Describing JD as wearing a ten-gallon cowboy hat, lizard skin boots and getting a broom of conservatism to sweep out McCain?

    Sheesh! You’re pretty hard on me!

  17. If Jimmie Lee Deakin was a Sonar Technician in the USN, he should know a little about focusing on the target.

    If that’s true then why is he spending all his time attacking JD?

    At the same time, why aren’t the McCain people attacking Deakin?

    Poor aiming? Conspiracy? I think not!

  18. JD spent the last year(s) attacking McCain daily on his radio show. He used every show to jab a stick in McCain’s eye. His impersonations and twisted accounts all intended to raise up JD and put down McCain. Then after holding his candidacy at bay in order to pay off his old legal fees…he was basically told to put up or shut up.

    Jim Deakin organized a campaign. He got the signatures and has worked hard to develop a grassroots effort.

    Of course any opponent in an election is going to point out the shortcoming of the other candidate, especially a long-time and very popular incumbent like McCain. Deakin was right to do bring up the difference between him and McCain.

    There is a world of difference between Deakin and Hayworth in the attack category.

    JD is just reaping what he sowed.

  19. Many conservative radio hosts have been “attacking” McCain for years as he continually thumbs his nose to conservatives. The Gang of 14, McCain Feingold, voting against the Bush Tax Cuts etc.
    Deakin may have got enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, but 6900 signatures in over a year is not that impressive. Raising 23k for a state wide race, in the same time is not impressive.
    That reeks of a protest candidate rather than a legitimate contender against McCain.
    Contrast that with JD raising over 2 million in four months and gathering over 14k signatures in the same time frame. That is the true hallmark of a candidate who can take on an entrenched incumbent and win.
    Furthermore John McCain opposing the most liberal President since Jimmy Carter does not really shore up ones conservatives bona fides.

  20. Jacklyn M. says:

    Once one candidate starts attacking and goes down that road, everyone has to do it.

    To my knowledge JD has never not run an attack campaign. In fact, JD has effectively been running for years on his radio show and it has been a forgone conclusion that he was going to be running long before he actually officially did so.

    So it only makes sense that McCain come out swinging. Obviously nobody likes that type of campaigning, but when the other candidate has been doing it for years… well…

    And so far, JD has been such a doof it’s almost as if he is working with the McCain campaign. Have you heard all the stuff that has come out of his mouth? The infomercial… not apologizing for it until he realized people didn’t like his buyer beware statement.

    An opportunist in the first degree.

    “I don’t want to offend anybody’s sensibilities, but I have a four letter word for you. Real. This is real.” Oh please.

  21. I can’t wait for the upcoming debates!!

    Hayworth and his lunatic supporters were such an embarrassment at the LD6 debate that the whole place was shuddering!

    Anybody want to defend Hayworth’s decorum in trying to shred a guy who was in the race before he was and has no chance of winning?

    This could have been an opportunity to discuss real issues and move the party forward, but Hayworth and his shouting, booing minioins were ridiculous and made all the real people attending just cringe!

    Part of me wants it to stop because it’s embarrassing to see “Republicans” act this way, but part of me wants them to keep it up because it shows them for what they are.

  22. Travis,

    Your description of the JD supporters has been repeated in other districts. The rude interruption of others, JD purposely avoiding questions from people he knows are McCain supporters and planted questions. Obama gave this guy lots of ideas!

    People actually walked out of our meeting because JD and his crew were so insulting to the purpose of the meeting. It was clear they had no interest in actually letting the district PC’s have their way….just like everything he does, ALL JD, ALL THE TIME.

    His big spending ways isn’t all he has in common with libs!

  23. I was at the LD 6 debate as well, and was cringing at the behavior of the JD supporters. Is it really necessary to boo and heckle Jim Deakin? I left actually feeling like I wanted to vote for Jim just because I felt bad! JD should rein in his crowd. I’m sure I’m not the only one in the room who felt that way.

  24. No defense of Hayworth’s behavior yet?

    No apology from the ridiculous supporters?

    Hmmm…..

  25. Oberserve says:

    @ Michael,

    I’m not being hard on you. I’m calling you out for being a hatchet man and nothing else, devoid of any actual intellectual content or purpose and devoid of any honest inquiry.

    You only make OUR candidate JD look bad.

    That means you failed at your task with this SA post.

  26. Michael Holliday says:

    #Oberserve Says:
    June 30th, 2010 at 9:17 am

    @ Michael,

    I’m not being hard on you. I’m calling you out for being a hatchet man and nothing else, devoid of any actual intellectual content or purpose and devoid of any honest inquiry.

    You only make OUR candidate JD look bad.

    That means you failed at your task with this SA post.
    _____

    What’s your purpose in swinging the hatchet against me? Have you read any of my Op Eds on “Commitment with America?” Sheesh…

    Have you read my little stories about JD putting on the cowboy hat, lizard skin boots and swinging the broom of conservatism to oust McCain then chowing down on some Rattlesnake Chili and cornbread?

    I thought they were delightful stories of hope.

    You say I’m devoid of intellectual content but my readers apparently like my work, so I think I’m doing something right. You can read it here followed by their positive coments:

    http://commitmentwithamerica.com/05-29-2010/obama-2-0-postmodern-politics-and-the-ghost-of-situational-ethics/

    Well, if I’m hurting JD, I’ll most certainly stop. Just tell me how. Then, tell me what I can say, how I can say it and when I can say it. You know, who needs freedom of speech?

    If asking questions about St. Deakin is hatcheting, then is the man simply above reproach? If so, should we all bow down to the new king, roll out the red carpet and sing his praises: Fa-la-la-la, la, la-la, la, la! All hail the king. Long live the King Deakin!

    We know what JD’s sins are. We Know McCain’s sins. And now we turn the spotlight of reason and inquiry on Deakin and try to deduce his authenticity based not on his record, he has none, but based on his positions going in.

    Everything is on the line: McCain gets in again, expect an amnesty for illegals that you’ll never undo in this lifetime. If JD or Deakin gets in, we’ve got a better chance to repel it. But JD, realistically stands the best chance.

    People, we’re never going to have our cake and eat it too! Be tactical, be strategic. Take small victories and plan for the future.

    You say I’m devoid of content, purpose and honesty but don’t demonstrate how. You can counter that I’ve got Apple Jacks for brains or whatever…be creative! Be happy!

    I’m absolutely baffled.

    My message to Deakin is this: Rome Wasn’t Built in a Day!

    You came from nowhere and made a good showing. I salute that! You, the common man, stood up to the establishment and made them take you seriously. But you will live to fight another day. You can run for congress in a few years etc.

    You’ve got a future. You don’t have to take everything in one fell swoop. It’s possible but not probable. So what?

    It’s your call Deakin but you don’t get a free ride.

  27. Martin Sepulveda says:

    JD Hayworth has no traction and has been exposed for what he is; a self serving opportunist who was and perhaps is involved in fraudulent activities.

    His self proclaimed moniker “consistant conservative” is a bad punch line at best.

    Now you are attacking Jim Deakin? I wonder how many of your pundits have ever stepped into the political arena and have run for office.

    Jim Deakin has served this country honorably. JD Hayworth did not; telling me that 1) there was no war & 2) the law didn’t require him to reg w/ sel service.
    Two convenient excuses, the second being severly flawed.

    Either way Hayworth has proven that he did not have the ability to maintain voters trust and was fired as a congressman.

    His challange is based on voter frustration and distrust w/ incumbents. Got it and I agree. Problem is that JD Hayworth has proven to be less honorable than the two bit self serving huckster that he is.

    He tapped into the anger of Az voters very early but inspite his lack of credibility (which is more apparent every day), the Sonoran Alliance continues to perpetuate his myth.

    Now at the expense of an under funded, under manned and out gunned challanger, who is in the race for the right reason, the Sonoran Alliance is going after Jim Deakin.

    That’s quite noble. You’ve hit a new low.

    For the record, JD Hayworths excuses regarding his lack of military service make him a coward in the eyes of those who have served and continue to serve.

    JD Hayworth does not rate to have any say regarding the welfare or employment of our military currently in harms way. We are dealing w/ a few issues at the moment that involve elected officials who have no experience w/ the hardships and reality of war.

  28. Oberserve says:

    @ Michael,

    I hate to say it but no I haven’t read any of your other posts as they really aren’t very noteworthy in terms of insight, content or on any dimension really.

    I see you have resorted to ad hominem, the common resort of the intellectually ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and intellectual scoundrels.

    “No I didn’t. Yes, you did. No I didn’t. Yes, you did.” is your approach to debate.

    LOL

    The way you can stop hurting JD is stop
    thinking you’re Michelle Malkin and start being more intellectually honest, relevant and interesting. Debate the issues.

  29. Michael Holliday says:

    Martin Sepulveda Says:
    June 30th, 2010 at 11:25 am

    Now you are attacking Jim Deakin? I wonder how many of your pundits have ever stepped into the political arena and have run for office.
    _____

    Sir, I never attacked Jim Deakin. I merely posited some intelligent questions. Deakin is inconsistent and immature in his rhetoric. Not bad for a first outing but not Senatorial enough for me.

    I have taken my views to the court of public opinion by hosting a conservative call-in radio show in Phoenix from 2005-2007. I took on all comers: liberal, conservative, libertarian, anarchist, etc. So I have stepped up to the plate.

    I also write for the “Commitment with America” blog and have positive reviews from my readers. You are more than welcome to get off your intellectually lazy frijoles and read my pieces and offer intelligent criticism. But you won’t.

    Sorry, I’ll put my military record, formal education,, experience, and knowledge against Deakin any day. I’m more qualified than Deakin to be Senator.

    You’ve proven that you cannot field an intelligent rebuttal, so I don’t take you seriously. When JD wins, I hope he sweeps you out with McCain, so we get some conservatives with brains in this state.

    Next idiot…
    _____

    Oberserve Says:
    June 30th, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    @ Michael,

    I hate to say it but no I haven’t read any of your other posts as they really aren’t very noteworthy in terms of insight, content or on any dimension really.
    _____

    Me: Do yourself a favor and read some of my Op Eds and learn something instead of knee-jerk reacting like a liberal dolt and attacking me on nothing but misplaced emotion. You’re the perfect Deakin voter: Jim says jump and you say, “Aye aye Captn’ Crunch!”
    _____

    You: I see you have resorted to ad hominem, the common resort of the intellectually ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and intellectual scoundrels.

    Me: I never called anyone a scoundrel, especially after not having read their posts or Op Eds. I’m intellectually honest enough to proffer my writing and analysis for criticism.

    Ironically, I’m not calling Jim a scoundrel, while you are calling me a scoundrel. I’ve never attacked Jim personally, I’ve asked some probing questions about his positions. Obviously I’ve hit a raw nerve as that’s taboo.

    I’m not attacking Deakin the man (ad hominen) I’m questioning Deakin the Senatorial hopeful. But, alas, in your blind allegiance to the blind, you cannot see that through your anger.

    You, sir, are the blithering scoundrel.

    Again, read my Op Eds and respond to the questions I ask and challenge my analysis. In other words, prove me wrong.

    But, intolerance to criticism, is the hallmark of the self-righteous narcissist. Which I run into all the time. You take your identity from your politics. So, when I question your politician, it’s an affront to who you are…even if dude is questionable. Nice position! It must be a very painful existence for you!

    You guys are outclassed and it makes you furious! That’s OK, I’ve struggled against mediocre resistance all of my life. I cherish you in your imbecility. You are like grumpy kids screaming for ice cream or some cookies to calm you down and satisfy your immediate hungers and desires.

    I earned my knowledge the old fashioned way, in the school of hard knocks…

  30. Michael Holliday says:

    Regarding military service:

    John Wayne: did not serve. Nobody would accuse him of not being a patriotic American.

    On the other hand:

    Al Gore: enlisted in August of 1969; sent to Vietnam in January. Lunatic, globalist par excellence!

    John Kerry: Lt. Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
    Stood up and pointed the finger at Vietnam vets calling them killers and likening them to Ghengis Khan, etc. Frolicking with Jan Fonda at the same time.

    Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea. Liberal loon extraordaire!

    Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53. Need I even say anything about this guy?

    Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy. Worst President is US history until the advent of Maobama! I don’t even want to go there, it’s so bad!

    Who wants to hurl the next insult to JD?

    Who will honor the sacrifice our service members have made to keep this country free and sovereign? Amnesty McCain or “whatever it takes” JD?

    I say JD. Prove me wrong!

  31. Christopher says:

    @Martin Sepelveda

    Firstly if anyone is wearing a ten gallon hat, it’s Deakin’s stovepipe piece that he stole from the Cat in the Hat; worn possibly to mimic Abraham Lincoln’s in order to grow him a few inches taller so he can maybe appear taller over the podium.

    But back to the issue at hand- military service.

    Firstly, calling someone who has not served in the military a coward is childish because military service is a choice. The cowardly thing to do is use the military to justify social advancement.

    You can’t knock a man’s (or woman’s) time in service, but you can never let it justify social advancement.

    Calling J.D. a coward for not having served in the military is the same thing as saying, “military entitles me to service,” “military makes you a good public servant.”

    This is the false logic that got us McCain in the first place.

    So I believe you are giving Deakin the same justification as McCain for running: I’ve served my time in the military, I’m entitled to be a public official.

    For the record, there are 139 Members of the 109th Congress who have served time in the military. Only 25 percent of people in Congress have served. Making the other 75 percent unfit for service, or cowards. This is sad logic.

    Deakin may have served in the military, but that in no way entitles him to anything but the contents of the G.I. Bill (which he never cashed in on- No college degree).

  32. Carlist says:

    Christopher:

    I’d like to add that J.D. would have been too young to serve during Vietnam and by the time the Gulf War rolled around was already newly married and in the midst of a media gig to support a family.

    This is the type of cheap shot by the faux “Character” Counters who’d make a decent human being puke!

    And btw I put my six years in!

  33. Michael Holliday says:

    I wasn’t at the Deer Valley Airport meeting the other night but I did see part of the video with Deakin and JD. I didn’t see JD getting out of control.

    Everyone has a right to speak and Deakin deserves respect for getting out there and going for it.

    If Deakin was getting shouted down, I’d stand up and tell JD supporters to let him speak.

    That’s what I’m about…

    I think message board filibusters are great but guerrilla street theater is not good, especially when you’ve got common patriots–good, decent Americans willing to step up and take on Washington.

    I think the Tea Party is only going to grow stronger and is a wake up call.

    As conservatives, we’re not liberal scum bags…Let them act like the morons.

    Victory is good but the form and manner of the victory is also important.

    Anyhow, the JD Hayworth bunch are decent folks that are passionate about their candidate. I’m sure Deakin’s people are the same.

    If it wasn’t JD vs. McCain, I’d be rallying around Deakin, but you know my position: JD is politically more powerful than Deakin at this time and has more experience. He will do whatever it takes to stop the amnesty fiasco. I’ve got to go with the most likely candidate that will work for the common good.

    If Deakin grows in stature in the next few years, then I’ll throw my chips in with him.

    I will not vote for McCain. Period.

  34. Oberserve says:

    @ Michael

    “You guys are outclassed and it makes you furious!”

    You guys? You mean us JD supporters, voters and multiple time donors?

    Who do you support again? You sound like a McCain guy.

  35. Michael Holliday says:

    # Oberserve Says:
    June 30th, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    @ Michael

    “You guys are outclassed and it makes you furious!”

    You guys? You mean us JD supporters, voters and multiple time donors?

    Who do you support again? You sound like a McCain guy.
    _____

    Wha-?

    I sound like a McCain guy?

    Hey you!

    1. Know who you’re talking to;

    2. Better read what I’m saying before tossing off irresponsible comments like that.

    My last post reiterated that I’ m for JD but I am NOT for the guerrilla street theater of acting up when another candidate is trying to get the point across ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CANDIDATE IS A COMMON MAN STANDING UP TO WASHINGTON.

    That common man is Deakin and the other Tea Party people.

    I owe allegiance to Hayworth and I’ve written Op Eds asking who the heck Deakin is and what are his positions.

    I’ve pointed out his inconsistencies and even asked him to support JD to defeat McCain BUT I’M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE, WHEN PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT DEAKIN IS BEING SHOUTED DOWN, AND NOT VOICE MY DISAGREEMENT OVER THOSE METHODS.

    So, if you don’t like it, too bad.

    Those are liberal pressure tactics.

    I wasn’t at the meeting so I’m just going on what was said. But it sounds like some people had a legitimate complaint.

    But, Deakin has to also realize that people are really into this election and passionate about their candidate and positions at this critical juncture in America’s history.

  36. I don’t care what you all say. Me and all my friends are voting for JD.

  37. Martin Sepulveda says:

    It’s offensive when politicians like JD are the first to wrap themselves in the flag. Only when prodded did JD Hayworth sharew his “reason” for not even complying w/ the law and registering w/ selective service.

    Mr. Hayworth is one year older than I am. I too had a young family and a new career when I was re-called to active duty to serve in the First Gulf War.

    The concept is called “duty to country”. That means service above self; including family.

    Ironically, that is in part what we as electors expect in those we elect.

    JD Hayworth has proven that he’d rather serve himself and perhaps his pals, than his constituents and this nation.

    We Republicans fired him for his less than stellar work as our congressman and his affection for the likes of Jack Abramoff.

    How can that not matter?

    Fast forward; we were fighting to a draw (at best) when I left a place called Ramadi,Iraq in 2005. The Surge was the only viable military solution. Politically it was very risky and not popular.

    Then Congressman JD Hayworth neither advocated for or against the Surge; as he was fighting for his political life due to his lack luster career and his ties w/ Abramoff.

    John McCain was in front of President Bush in advocating for the Surge. Extra combat troops enabled us to ultimately be successful in our military mission; combat deaths were greatly reduced.

    For anyone who aspires to make decisions regarding our military, I’d like to know that they have the guts and the moral conviction to truly be there for our troops in time of war.

    My third and final tour to Iraq was in Fallujah 08-09. I saw the impact that the Surge had on the battlefield.

    Those of us who have volunteered to serve our nation in time of war, deserve leaders who will not put their “political life” above the lives of those on the battlefield.

    I don’t hold a grudge against Mr. Hayworth. I’m comforted by the fact that he’s now enjoying his family as a private citizen.

    But I do believe that Arizona would not be well served w/ Mr. Hayworth back in office.

    I also believe that COWARD and self serving are both titles that Mr. Hayworth earned.

  38. Michael Holliday says:

    # Martin Sepulveda Says:
    July 1st, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    It’s offensive when politicians like JD are the first to wrap themselves in the flag. Only when prodded did JD Hayworth share his “reason” for not even complying w/ the law and registering w/ selective service.

    Me: Dude, what are you blathering about? Since when is JD pimping the flag? If anyone’s exploiting his military service angle to further a social cause antithetical to the American way of life and sovereignty, like amnesty for illegals, it’s John McCain. Be real.
    _____

    You: Mr. Hayworth is one year older than I am. I too had a young family and a new career when I was re-called to active duty to serve in the First Gulf War. The concept is called “duty to country”. That means service above self; including family.
    Ironically, that is in part what we as electors expect in those we elect.

    Me: I salute your service. I’m a veteran too, but what does JD not going to the Gulf War have to do with the price of tea in China? There was no draft going on. You volunteered.

    Why whine about JD? Actually what true conservative Americans like to see are things like a one-hundred percent pro-life rating, and an A rating from the NRA, which JD has and John McCain does not have. Also, JD ranks higher in conservative voting standing than McCain.
    _____

    You: JD Hayworth has proven that he’d rather serve himself and perhaps his pals, than his constituents and this nation. We Republicans fired him for his less than stellar work as our congressman and his affection for the likes of Jack Abramoff.
    How can that not matter?

    Me: Sir, we’re about to lose most of what we served for as veterans when McCain gives up our sovereignty to illegal aliens. I think you’re flim-flamming the facts like your candidate John McCain. If you want to be patriotic, just take McCain’s position on an issue and do the opposite. It’s called the inverse McCain Effect. Do the opposite of McCain on most issues and you’ll come out conservative.
    _____

    You: Fast forward; we were fighting to a draw (at best) when I left a place called Ramadi, Iraq in 2005. The Surge was the only viable military solution. Politically it was very risky and not popular.

    Then Congressman JD Hayworth neither advocated for or against the Surge; as he was fighting for his political life due to his lack luster career and his ties w/ Abramoff.

    Me: The Surge was a tactical move I supported, I’m sure JD would have proffered an opinion on the “Surge” if you would have asked him. You’re just really rambling on and on. Your hero, McCain, was/is against enhanced interrogation which has saved countless military and civilian lives.

    Your hero McCain wants to close Gitmo which is very effective in its application to get information from terrorist and keep them from harming others.

    I suggest you read the book “Courting Disaster…” and come back and have this conversation because you’ll then want to vote for JD Hayworth who will keep Gitmo open, authorize enhanced interrogation for the worst Al Qaeda Terrorists and shut the border to narco-terrorists, communist subversives and MS 13 gang members from Central America.
    _____

    You: John McCain was in front of President Bush in advocating for the Surge. Extra combat troops enabled us to ultimately be successful in our military mission; combat deaths were greatly reduced.

    Me: Once again, McCain is opening innocent US civilians up to a terrorist strike of monumental proportions by: (1) wanting to close the highly effective interrogation facilities at Guantanamo Bay; (2) advocating against enhanced interrogation techniques; (3) giving amnesty to some of the worst criminals and terrorists on earth that come from south of the border.
    _____

    You: For anyone who aspires to make decisions regarding our military, I’d like to know that they have the guts and the moral conviction to truly be there for our troops in time of war.

    Me: The war has moved to our streets. MS 13 gangs and illegal aliens are killing our citizens and McCain does nothing. You, sir, are not with the program called reality! You should get with the program, being an ex-military man and realize national security starts at our national borders.
    _____

    You: My third and final tour to Iraq was in Fallujah 08-09. I saw the impact that the Surge had on the battlefield. Those of us who have volunteered to serve our nation in time of war, deserve leaders who will not put their “political life” above the lives of those on the battlefield.

    Me: There’s more to life than just remembering the “Surge.” I’m glad McCain supported it. To me, it was just garden variety common sense. I salute your service and appreciate your opinion, even if it is a bit off the mark and missing key points of what JD Hayworth is about.
    _____

    You: I don’t hold a grudge against Mr. Hayworth. I’m comforted by the fact that he’s now enjoying his family as a private citizen. But I do believe that Arizona would not be well served w/ Mr. Hayworth back in office. I also believe that COWARD and self serving are both titles that Mr. Hayworth earned.

    Me: I think it takes moral courage and almost heroic virtue to care enough to sport a 100% pro life record in an age when most politicians could care less for our most defenseless little citizens, the unborn. Remember what Jesus said, what you do to the little ones you do to Him.

    I bet in the final moral calculus, JD’s contribution to saving new life, the life of the unborn, is equal or greater to that of many soldiers on the battlefield. Too bad McCain’s record is mediocre at best.

    New life is not cheap to JD. JD has never politicized the right to life. McCain has. I guess by your definition of JD, McCain is a coward for not fighting the moral and ethical battle to save the precious unborn citizens who lack a voice and means to defend themselves.

Speak Your Mind

*