No Child Left Behind, The Patriot Act, The 2005 energy bill or Cap & Trade Pilot as per Hayworth, string immigration all voted for by US House Representative Hayworth incumbent 3 years removed is what the people of Arizona are looking at besides his inability to stop his slid in the polls.

Make fun of Deakin all you want – scares you don’t it?

Hayworth is not Tea Party material.

JD Hayworth wrote the book, “Whatever it Takes”, and he endorses closing the borders and no pathway to citizenship. Befoe the march that was going to “bring us to our knees”, I knew they were here, and I for one was not engaged in the arguement. I felt they mostly only came here to work. Well honey that march opened my eyes, I am now out there as an opponent of amnesty and a pathway to citizenship. I am for deporting all of them if they are here illeglly, I am for making sure they have no birthright citizenship. Now JPD, does that mean I get a “C’ from NUMBERS USA? Oh well. Lets see, what does Deakin support, since he was not involved in anything till he decided to run for office, ask the illegals immigration movement, Jimmy Lee was lost in the park, he was not even a PC till 9/09. Now that was activism, oh he said no one asked him, no one asked me, but I found out how to become one and did. But I guess Jimmy Lee is used to being led around.

Honest and aware observers here in Arizona have seen, over the past 18 months know exactly that JD has promoted the events heavily on his radio show, interviewing leaders on KFYI; broadcasting live from last year’s Phoenix Rally on April 15th. He also spoke at a Tucson event last October. BOTH of these event were BEFORE getting into the race. Throughout his campaign he HAS spoken to dozens’ of Tea Party groups, as small as 15 or 20, to as large as 300! I know, because I’ve been to several of them!

So please, JPD quit with your dishonest diatribes and postings, designed to mislead fellow Arizonans. YOUR words and actions (and those of YOUR Senate candidate!) ARE far closer to those of our incumbent RINO McCain, or our Marxist-in-Chief President, than they are to ANY honest Tea Party candidate!

Hayworth’s H.R.3938: “Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005”
http://phoenixteaparty.ning.com/profiles/blogs/hayworths-hr3938-enforcement what a porker bill this is and Hayworth states (just again on July 5) that SB 1070 was modeled after it – take a hike Hayworth, you had twelve years and didn’t get it done. Got fired and wrote a book on what you didn’t do (that didn’t sell well at all).

The Grassroots movement in America wants less government. Look at this bill and its progressive increases in federal employees in multiple areas stepped over five years – wouldn’t you think at year two or three there would be no need to add more judges and lawyers and etc., this is Tea Party material?

Hayworth’s Immigration-Reduction Grades 1994 to 2006
http://phoenixteaparty.ning.com/profiles/blogs/hayworths-immigrationreduction
Get a grip people, Hayworth after 12 years gets a grade of “C”, Harry Mitchell has the same grade. All Hayworth is focused on is the Mexican Border – all else are welcome – look at his voting record.

Yours truly RAP
JPD

May I clarify?

1. The Democrat Party has long claimed to be the “party of the people” but that claim has not been historically true. From its founding until well into the 20th Century it was the party of Southern elitists, first the slave-holding plantation-based southern aristocracy, later their descendants after the Civil War. True, from 1820 to 1860, it got votes and once was even dominant in parts of the North, but it was no accident that eight of the 12 presidents serving after Jefferson and before the Civil War were southern slave owners and two of the 12 (Pierce and Buchanan) were northerners with southern sympathies who aided the expansion of slavery. For more than half of the 20th Century the Democrat Party sheltered and nurtured the power of southern racists in Congress. Wilson was the most racist president to sit in the White House since the Civil War. Beginning with Wilson, power began to seep from the Southern racist elite to the current coalition of elitists. Yet I would in no way regard the current Democrat Party as the party of the people. It simply traded one set of interests for another. One constant, however, has remained for more than a 100 years. That is, since Cleveland, when in power, Democrat presidents have served Wall Street well. Big Business and Big Government have had a long running love affair.

2. I never said Bryan was a conservative. He certainly was not so regarded in his day. My point was that when he ran for the presidency his platforms were not “statist,” to borrow your term. I do say that advocating, as his platforms did, a smaller federal government, no borrowing in peace time, no “foreign pauper” immigration (to use the platform’s term,) and free trade, and opposing American intervention overseas, seem most compatible on today’s scene with Ron Paul. Is Paul a libertarian or conservative? You make the call. They are not the same in my opinion. Bryan did support an income tax, which would put him at odds with Paul, but he certainly did not originate the idea. That form of taxation was first introduced in the Lincoln administration to fund the Civil War. The Supreme Court later declared an income tax on interest, dividends, and rents to be unconstitutional. It upheld an income tax on wages. Go figure.

3. I differ from the professor you cite in how much significance I would give to Bryan. My view is that he was ineffectual. I regard Wilson as much more significant in the evolution and transformation of the Democrat Party into the leading Big Government Party in America. Don’t get me wrong. Today’s Republican Party is also a Big Government Party, the question is degree.

4. Taft was not an intellectual force on the Supreme Court. He is more known for reforming the Court’s jurisdiction and administration, for which his reputation for making the Court more functional and effective is well deserved.

My source material? I was a contemporary of those times. Ha Ha.

I do love interacting with other students of history. Perhaps we are reading different books or relying on different experts.

I am curious however, about your interest in Bryan. On one hand you say that his platform was very people oriented, which partly is true since the Populist Party supported him. He was more the ‘noble socialist’ than a hard-core elitist progressive which dominated the Republican Party. Remember the WASPs elitists showed complete disdain for the Catholics and the Jews, hence chasing them into the Democrat Party.

I am surprised, though by one point. You say that the Democratic Republicans beginning with Jefferson and Madison are really not the party of the people, then you tell me that the Bryan platform was very ‘conservative.

I have utilized the research of one Gary North Professor emeritus from Cal-State Northridge I believe. He has recorded an excellent DVD series about the implosion of Evangelicalism in the public square beginning with the Scopes Trial and ending with the Supreme Court Ruling in 1973, Roe v. Wade; which awakened evangelical activism.

Dr. North describes Bryan as the most radically left candidate for president ever (until Obama of course!) I just Googled his name and found this website, which definitely appears to substantiate my claim. Just look at 5th parargraph. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h805.html

“Under Bryan’s influence, the Democratic party underwent a dramatic change. The earlier Jacksonian legacy was one dedicated to limited government, but the party from 1896 onward promoted a more expansive role.”

Perhaps you should do some more research!

Regarding Howard Taft, have you ever taken a close look at his record on the US Supreme Court? Do you want me to Google his name as well?

I would ask: what is your source materials. After all, you were NOT a contemporary of those times, were you? LOL(just being lighthearted!)

Andrew Jackson could have said what Bryan said in his cross of gold speech. The De,ocrat Party has claimed (falsely) to be the party of the people since Jefferson beat Adams in 1800.

More telling are the positions taken by the Democrat Party in the convention that nominated Bryan. They were for free trade, a smaller federal government, no “foreign pauper” immigration (to use their term,) and no federal borrowing in peace time. Yes they supported an income tax, but the reason is that the federal government derived most of its income them from high tariffs, which favored the manufacturing interests of the New England and New York, and hurt the small farmers of the Midwest and South.

It is a fact that Theodore Roosevelt governed as a conservative, by the standards of his day, though his rhetoric was often populist. Were his econmic policies laissez-faire? No, but no president’s policies could be so described. He is easily ranked among the most brilliant ever to sit in the White House. He also received the medal of honor posthumously, and is the only president to receive it. His son, General Theodore Roosevelt Jr., also received it and died in France in 1944.

You did not ‘fess up you were wrong about Taft. I’m waiting.

To my fellow conservatives:

It is important for us to get the facts and history right. We owe ourselves, and the rest of the country, the truth and nothing but the truth. Anyone who says otherwise is no conservative.

He also totally supported income tax in his speech. He indeed promoted all the socialist values through his public efforts. And INDEED Bryan was viciously attacked and vilified for his opposition to the more radical elements of progressivism including his appearance and ‘crucifixion’ at the Scopes Trial.

Regarding Roosevelt, he may have been conservative by modern standards, but HE was NO conservative. I’ll saved discussion concerning Roosevelt and the Scopes Trial for another time!

I will support whatever candidate wins the primary and we will beat the Democrats.

You write:

“Beginning in 1896, with William Jennings Bryan, the Progressive movement began the political transformation of our country, into the big government, high tax, statist party that produced Woodrow Wilson and both Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt. And this radical transformation occurred in one short generation when, by 1912, all three presidential candidates, Wilson, Taft and Roosevelt were Progressives.”

Bryan was for free coinage silver but the 1896 Democrat Party platform was hardly statist. It opposed:

1. Paper money, reserving coinage to gold and silver,

2. High tariffs

3. “Foreign pauper” immigration, and

4. Federal borrowing in peace time through the issuance of bonds.

Among other things, it supported:

1. Reducing the size of the federal government

2. The Monroe Doctrine as a permanent aspect of American foreign policy, and

3. A silver and gold standard, but not a gold standard alone.

Bryant was a devout Christian and prohibitionist, fought against Darwin, opposed all foreign entanglements, and despised the control Wall Street and the railroads then held over Midwestern farmers. If they can be related to anyone today, his views as a presidential candidate probably came closest to Ron Paul’s. Later, after his last run for the presidency, he drifted closer to more modern-day liberalism and the Populist movement.

Your second historical erorr was to label Taft a progressive. He was not.

As for Theodore Roosevelt, he campaigned as a progressive, particularly in 1912, but governed primarily as a conservative.