As my analysis below will show, conservatives had some victories and suffered some losses. I think, in Arizona, the TEA Party was either too hyped or not as effective as it could have been. While some say that Arizona loves its incumbents (and that’s why some ratings groups like NFIB, RTL and NRA endorsed incumbents over challengers with higher scores), some newcomer candidates ran ineffective campaigns and that may be more to blame than a love of incumbency. While it may be a sign of becoming inured in “the system,” newcomers, if they want to win, simply have to learn how to campaign and do so effectively.
LD 1
The LD 1 Senate race was not contested, so Steve Pierce is our nominee. By all accounts, Mr. Pierce will be one of two major Senate President candidates. Russell Pearce being his opponent. On election night, I overheard Republican Party Executive Director Brett Mecum tell Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen say that he believed that Russell Pearce had the votes to become Senate President. Since then, I believe I’ve seen one news article stating that Russell Pearce does not have the votes necessary. If Steve Pierce wins, we can expect the status quo to be maintained. He was one of the sponsors of the tax increase.
House Whip Andy Tobin won re-election. Karen Fann, a candidate Mr. Tobin recruited, beat Noel Campbell by about 3% or 1,400 votes. I understand that Mr. Campbell was the most conservative candidate in the race, but ran a lackluster campaign. Ms. Fann replaces Lucy Mason who was termed out. I can’t say I’m sad to see Ms. Mason go. She has been far less than an icon of conservatism. I can only hope that Ms. Fann votes to the right of Ms. Mason but I’m not too hopeful since Keith Sipmann labeled her as a Democrat in Disguise on his blog and she was one of the Republicans fundraising for Democrats at the Twelve in `10 fundraiser. As for the Whip, as I stated when I had him on Grassroots Interviews, I was disappointed that House leadership even allowed Prop. 100 on the floor. Mr. Tobin was gracious enough to concede that it was a fair criticism. When I went back to look at Mr. Tobin’s scores from Goldwater Institute, they were all lackluster. He scores about as well as Mason, Quelland, Reagan, Konopnicki, and Crandall and in the 2010 Goldwater scores, he’s almost always at the bottom among Republicans. I don’t think Mr. Tobin belongs in the conservative camp with scores like those and I have no understanding of how he got a PAChyderm endorsement.
Noel Campbell’s loss meant that conservatives didn’t get the optimal results.
LD 3
Doris Goodale and Nancy McLain won re-election to their House seats. Ray Cullsion was the only challenger. Ms. McLain’s 2009 Goldwater scores look like she does about as well as Driggs or Barto in the House. She scored well to the right of her seat-mate Goodale. While Ms. Goodale and Ms. McLain CLAIM they were anti-Prop. 100, they BOTH voted for it in the state legislature. Considering they don’t score well and they assured you’d suffer higher taxes, they should have been held accountable. I would have been willing to roll the dice on Cullison.
Looking at Goodale’s and McLain’s scores from Goldwater, I simply can’t call the House races a win for conservatives. McLain scores about as well as Nancy Barto and Goodale scores with Mason and Reagan. What LD 3 needs is clones of Ron Gould for the House seats.
LD 4
Scott Bundgaard won the Senate nomination rather handily, earning three times as many votes as either Tony Bouie or Shawn Kohner. Bouie had run for the House in LD 6 in 2008 and lost after being tagged as a moderate despite endorsements from Gorman, Shadegg, and Mike Pence. Kohner is a political newcomer and seems by all accounts a rather conservative guy. Scott has some detractors who will point out his flaws, but be that as it may, the voters chose him and this sets up an interesting situation in the legislature because Jack Harper and Judy Burges got 40% of the vote each and the others fought over the remaining 20%. Harper and Burges score extremely well by most conservative organizations, but with the difficulties between Bundgaard and Harper, one has to ask, are they going to kill each other’s bills or are they going to work together to advance the cause of conservatism no matter who might be the sponsor of a bill? Despite their flaws I actually like both Scott and Jack. I truly hope they both will not allow their personal differences get in the way of voting conservatively, even if one or the other is a sponsor or co-sponsor of a bill. I really want to call this a win for conservatives.
LD 5
Sylvia Allen beat the poster boy for RINO Republicans in the House Bill Konopnicki 55% to 44%. Konopnicki is disgusting and a prime example of everything that is wrong with moderates because he not only was the leader of the Sanctuary Six but he always scores about dead last among Republicans by conservative rating organizations. Let me ask, if conservatives are so horrid, why campaign as one? Konopnicki did his best to cast himself as the conservative in this race. I say if you’re a moderate, you should sing it loud and proud, not lie to the electorate. The truth is that the conventional wisdom demands that you run to the right in a Republican primary and Konopnicki wanted power so bad he’d lie, lie, lie just to get elected. I couldn’t be more thankful that LD 5 rejected the Burger Baron.
In the House races, Brenda Barton and Chester Crandell, who ran as a team with Sylvia Allen, defeated Konopnicki’s hand-picked candidate, Keith Alexander. LD 5 was an unmitigated win for conservatives since the most conservative candidates won. This is one of the few races where money didn’t matter as much. Konopnicki outspent Sylvia Allen by a ton.
LD 6
Lori Klein beat incumbent David Braswell by almost a 60-40 split. Braswell has drawn a ton of fire for being a moderate, yet his 2010 Goldwater scores were surprisingly high. He tied for 4th in the Senate on Education issues with Jack Harper. However, Braswell drew some fire for voting against a school choice bill, but Braswell defended the vote because the bill was too narrow and didn’t apply to all schools equally. On constitutional government issues, he tied for 5th with Thayer Verschoor. On economic regulation issues, he tied for 4th with Sylvia Allen. However, Mr. Braswell’s answer to me on meddling in the economy sounded an awful lot like he favored big government meddling in the economy with special breaks for business rather than an even low tax, low regulation, free market regime. On taxation and budgeting issues he tied for 4th with Jack Harper and Thayer Verschoor. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that the Maricopa Board of Supervisors demanded that their appointees support Prop. 100. His answers on Prop. 100 showed he wanted it both ways: he claimed he didn’t support it, but he supported the voters’ right to decide. Overall, Braswell scored as the 5th most conservative Senator and he beat out Thayer Verschoor. Now that Lori has defeated David, she’ll have to score very well with Goldwater to avoid an unfavorable comparison. I truly wish Lori the best of luck and I hope she makes Andy Biggs look like a communist by comparison.
Ms. Klein ran as a team with Carl Seel and David Fitzgerald. Unfortunately, Amanda Reeve, an incumbent moderate, took the greatest percentage of the vote. Reeve may have scored well with Goldwater on Education issues, but her votes quickly fall off on other issues. She was the lowest scoring member in LD 6 and she helped raise money for Democrats at the Twelve in `10 fundraiser. One might attribute her win to having the money to paper the district with mailers. By some accounts, she sent almost as many mail pieces as did Ben Quayle. Carl Seel had the second highest vote total in the House race, narrowly edging out his teammate David Fitzgerald. LD 6’s voters made a poor choice in Reeve. Amanda Reeve will continue to vote at cross purposes with Carl Seel.
LD 7
LD 7’s elections were almost a total disaster. “Sanctuary Six” Nancy Barto won with about 46% of the vote, almost half, and she was 13 points ahead of her closest rival, Ray Barnes. What’s really sad is that TEA Party candidate Brad Buch came in dead last…even behind the guy who was found to have forged his $5 qualifying contributions, Bob Green. In his defense, Mr. Buch was a newcomer and wasn’t knowledgeable about campaigning. I voted for Mr. Buch even though I never expected him to win. Why? Because he was the conservative and the other choices either weren’t palatable or I was skeptical of.
I believe name ID helped David Burnell Smith garner the most votes in the LD 7 House race. Despite Howard Levine’s write up of the LD 7 candidates, I don’t believe Mr. Smith was the most conservative candidate, probably in the top three, but not the most conservative. Other news articles showed Mr. Smith had some odd policy positions for a Republican, namely vilifying insurance companies and opposing tort reform. Be that as it may, with Nancy Barto’s win and Democrat in Disguise Heather Carter winning the other nomination, David Smith will be the lone conservative knight in LD 7. I was thoroughly disgusted that the two most conservative candidates (to my mind) came in 2nd and 3rd to last. Mike Farrar earned only 11% of the vote and Howard Sprague earned only 9% of the vote.
With Barto and Carter winning, the two most liberal candidates in their respective races, LD 7 has pretty much gone moderate…as if it already wasn’t. The one ray of hope was David Smith’s win. Let’s hope David can keep Nancy and Heather from malfing things up too bad.
LD 8
While LD 8’s voters had no choices in the Senate race, they were stuck with the liberal Michele Reagan who raises money for Democrats, they made some pretty conservative choices in the House races. Incumbent conservative John Kavanagh garnered about 40% while conservative Michelle Ugenti came in second with 21% of the vote. While I’m sure the soon-to-be Sen. Reagan will be voting at cross-purposes with Rep. Kavanagh and Ugenti, at least conservatives got one of the most conservative results it could have gotten in this district.
LD 9
Incumbent Rep. Debbie Lesko won re-election with 45% of the vote. Rick Gray came in second, and won nomination with 28% of the vote. If I’m not mistaken, Diane Douglas, who came in 3rd with 25% of the vote was heavily involved in PAChyderm Coalition and had their endorsement. I was leery of Rick Gray when he refused to come on Grassroots Interviews but he states in the 2010 Cap Times Primary Guide that he believes in the Austrian School of economics which should mark him as a free marketer. Considering Lesko not only endorsed McCain (before Hayworth got in the race) AND she voted FOR the tax increase, she should have been held accountable. Lesko failed to garner an Arpaio endorsement, but Douglas and Gray did. I can’t call this as a win for the conservatives since Diane lost.
LD 10
Jim Weiers was the biggest vote getter in the House with about 34% of the vote and Kimberly Yee got the second nomination with 32% of the vote. There’s no doubt that tremendous name ID helped Jim Weiers win. Weiers and Yee had PAChyderm Coalition endorsements. I can’t say I’m sad to see that “Sanctuary Six” Doug Quelland lost. Quelland has also had troubles with the Clean Elections Commission and he has been removed from office before. I can’t say that history helped him. Bill Adams supported Prop. 100 and wanted to sound like he’s pro-Life when he’s not. This was a win for conservatives because the best candidates won. Let’s just hope Yee and Weiers can undo any damage Linda Gray might do in the Senate. Linda Gray is now notoriously pro tax after SPONSORING Prop. 10 and opposing Prop. 13.
LD 11
LD 11 was just as big a disaster as LD 7. In the Senate race, liberal incumbent Rep. Adam Driggs successfully switched houses with about 49% of the vote. Name ID and money meant a lot in this race. Driggs was one of the liberals who helped fundraise for Democrats in the Twelve in `10 fundraiser put on by Greater Phoenix Leadership, a group that supports big government meddling in the economy and more government in education. PAChyderm endorsed Senate candidate Rich Davis came in second and therefore did not earn a nomination, with 40% of the vote.
Conservatives also didn’t get the optimal results in LD 11’s House races. Eric West and Dusti Morris were the PAChyderm Coalition endorsed candidates. However, Dusti dropped out of the race early. Shawnna Bolick would have also been a superlative candidate. While Eric West earned one of the two nominations with 22% of the vote, Kate Brophy McGee, a supporter of big government and tax increases earned 31% of the vote. Shawnna Bolick came in third with 19%, Bev Kraft, the wife of former legislator James Kraft who lied about being related to the Kraft Foods family came in fourth with 17%.
Again, these were not optimal results for conservatives. The dream results would have been Davis in the Senate and Eric West and Shawnna Bolick in the House. As in LD 7, conservatives got 1 out of 3.
LD 12
LD 12’s Senate race couldn’t have been a bigger disaster unless Democrat in Disguise Eve Nunez had won. Rather, the LD 12 voters chose absentee incumbent liberal John Nelson with 56% of the vote. Not only has Nelson consistently earned D’s and F’s from the Goldwater Institute for voting to regulate the economy, but some Democrats score as more free market than Nelson. He voted to increase your taxes and like the Sanctuary Six in the House, he wasn’t present to vote on HB 2280 in the Senate. He also helped raise money for liberal Republicans and Democrats at the Twelve in `10 fundraiser. If you want more information on what a liberal Nelson is, just take a look at the comparison piece on Clark Silver’s website in the lower right corner. There’s nothing Republican about Nelson. The ONLY conservative in the Senate race, Clark Silver, earned 25% of the vote. LD 12’s voters made a huge mistake.
LD 19
LD 19’s Senate race was a disaster for conservatives too. Conservatives had a decent candidate in James Molina, but he dropped out of the race towards the end. That meant the absentee liberal incumbent House member making a switch to the Senate got a free pass. Crandall is the ONLY Republican who missed more votes than John Nelson in 2009. He’s also another demonstrable liberal that campaigns as a conservative. Meanwhile, he was raising money for liberal Republicans and Democrats at the Twelve in `10 fundraiser.
Justin Olson was the only candidate endorsed by PAChyderm Coalition in the LD 19 House race. Luckily he got 36% of the vote. Speaker Adams got about 36% of the vote too. In going over the scores from Goldwater and other conservative rating organizations, I haven’t noticed Speaker Adams at the top of many lists. As Speaker, he also allowed the tax increase on the House floor. I think that was a huge failing. Be that as it may, the other “Republican” candidate in the race, Perkinson, earned 29% of the vote. He wasn’t strong enough on the tax increase and cited Crandall as one of his political influences. Thankfully, he didn’t win a nomination.
I’m not sure I can call this a win for conservatives since Molina dropped out of the Senate race. Granted, conservatives scored a single victory with Olson’s win and avoiding a Crandall clone in the House, but I’ve called other districts disasters when only one conservative won.
LD 20
Since Sen. Huppenthal ran for Superintendent of Public Instruction and Rep. McComish ran unopposed for Huppenthal’s Senate seat, that left two open House seats. The voters chose Jeff Dial with 48% of the vote and former legislator Bob Robson with 38% of the vote. It’s surprising that Dial beat a former legislator by 10%, especially when Dial, McComish and Robson ran as a team. One might expect their vote totals to be a little closer. I wasn’t blown away by Robson’s answers in the Cap Times 2010 Primary Guide on Prop. 100, his “other concerns” or his fiscal philosophy. Rather than giving a direct answer, he said the tax increase was a moot point. I couldn’t disagree more. Taxation has always been a key issue for Republicans and, as an office seeker, he OWES his potential constituents a direct answer. He also said he wanted to “maintain” education infrastructure. To me, it sounds like Mr. Robson wants to protect the education status quo. The status quo isn’t working and we need change, namely slapping down administrators’ wasteful spending, ignoring what the teachers’ union wants and focusing on spending on and the needs of the kids. Mr. Robson says he’s a fiscal conservative, but also a realist. To me, this is a red flag. It says, “I’m a fiscal conservative, except when I’m not.” Robson also got the endorsement of some police and fire groups and they don’t have a reputation for loving de minimis government. Looking at Robson’s past scores from Goldwater, they’re lackluster. This guy scored to the left of Sen. John Nelson some years. Perhaps there’s a reason why he got 10% fewer votes than Dial. Jeff Dial skipped ALL the issues questions in the Cap Times book, but submitted his 250 word piece to the CCEC. Not sure why that is. I’m guessing Jeff wanted voters to get information on him from his own website instead of the guides. The other candidate in the race, Christopher Tolino didn’t seem much different than Robson. Tolino, who got about 14% of the vote said he wanted to “provide incentives to make Arizona a business friendly environment.” Again, this sounds like headhunting, or picking winners and losers in the economy rather than letting the economy grow wild as the free market’s whims may grow it. At least Tolino gave a direct answer on Prop. 100.
A win for conservatives? I’d argue that that’s not the case with Robson as our nominee. In any case, LD 20 has a Democrat Rep in office, Rae Waters, and she’s seeking re-election. I’d rather see her gone than in office, but replacing her with a moderate like Robson makes me queasy.
LD 21
LD 21’s House nominations were good for conservatives. PAChyderm Coalition endorsees Tom Forese and J.D. Mesnard took 35% and 34% of the vote respectively while Democrat in Disguise (DID) Vanessa Whitener earned only 30%.
LD 22 House
LD 22 is an iconic conservative stronghold, so, the fact that DID Steve Urie earned a nomination with 20% of the vote is a severe disappointment. It’s also somewhat of a surprise that Urie was able to pick off incumbent Laurin Hendrx, but Hendrix has been criticized for skipping District meetings and failing to be available to his constituents. Hopefully, Mr. Hendrix’ lesson will be learned by ALL state legislators. Conservative leviathan Eddie Farnsworth earned the other nomination with 34% of the vote, the largest share. Another disappointment in the LD 22 House primaries is that conservatives Kelly Townsend and Bret Petillo earned so few votes. They earned 11% and 7% respectively. Mr. Howell, the other DID running for a nomination, earned only 8%. In such a conservative district, Howell and Urie should have come in last, not Petillo. Not living in the district, my only guess as to how Mr. Urie won a nomination is that he was very good at telling his people to one-shot him while conservatives spread their votes across the other candidates.
LD 23
LD 23’s Senate race was a total win for conservatives. Steve Smith won by almost a 3-1 margin over Matt Byers. Steve had Joe Arpaio’s endorsement and is a straightforward, no non-sense kind of guy. When Steve came on Grassroots Interviews, I was thoroughly impressed with him. I just hope that in this District that has about a 4% Democrat registration advantage that Steve Smith can pick off Rebecca Rios. HOWEVER, only 11K voters voted for Rios whereas almost 16K voted for the Republican candidates. I believe that if Steve campaigns to the Independents and PNDs that are trending Republican these days, he MIGHT be able to defeat her. She has tremendous name ID. I wish him the best of luck since we need people like Steve in the legislature.
LD 26
In LD 26, conservatives got just about the best results they could have hoped for. The voters re-nominated Vic Williams with 41% of the vote and gave conservative Terri Proud 32% of the vote while defeating Democrat in Disguise Wade McLean with only 27% of the vote. Williams is no conservative, but with McLean being described by some as a DID, I’m happy to take Williams over McLean. Now, LD 26 is split in the House with 1 Democrat holding a seat and she’s seeking re-election. I hope the Republicans, independents, PNDs and Libertarians turn out in force and elect Proud and Williams and send the Democrat Nancy Young Wright home.
LD 30
Sen. Frank Antenori’s defeat of the demonstrably liberal Marian McClure by a 2-1 margin is the best conservatives could have hoped for in LD 30’s Senate race considering the candidates in the race.
In the House races, LD 30’s voters nominated incumbents David Gowan and Ted Vogt with 34% and 28% of the vote respectively. Luckily, they were wise enough to send DID Doug Sposito to defeat with 12% of the vote and a third place finish. Gowan and Vogt got B’s overall from Goldwater, so there’s room for them to move to the right. There may have been more conservative candidates in this race. Kurt Knurr, who got 10% of the vote and came in 4th styled himself as a radical conservative. Parralee Schneider got 9% of the vote. She says she’s a grassroots conservative, but then says she favors “business friendly legislation.” If she means cutting taxes and regulation across the board to allow the free market direct economic growth, that’s fine, but if she means tailoring the economy, I’m glad she lost. Brian Abbot, who came in dead last with 7% of the vote was another tax and spend liberal who supported Prop. 100.
Thanks. Interesting and thorough read.
I am glad to see that people take primary election results serious. I believe that there is information that can be gleaned from primary results, besides who will compete for the general. They can also indicate if a district is becoming conversative or liberal. This is very useful for precinct committeemen and committeewomen.
I agree. In my estimate, the primary is THE vote! If we do not choose our own representatives, someone else will choose them for their own schemes..like the choice of Mc Cain for Pres. WHEN are we going to stop the practices that allow this? Such as other political parties being able to vote for what are supposed to be OUR choices? When will we change the primaries for President to reflect MORE than the choice of the East coast?
Let’s push our party to change these nullifying practices.
In LD 22, Kelly Townsend didn’t even get a photo or ad in the Voter’s guide. Also, she has ethical issues that have turned off people in her district. SHE is the reason Hendrix lost. Don’t forget it!
Hendrix endorsed John McCain. Therefore…glad to see him go. I’m tired of politicians who get elected as “conservatives” and then start wishing liberals on us because they think it will further their career. Debbie Lesko, Frank Antenori, Steve Montenegro, Jerry Weiers and Trent Franks are a few more “conservatives” for McCain who come to mind.
Good article.
Sam,
Kelly had no ethical issues. There was bad blood by the leadership of the EVTPP toward Kelly when Pam Stevenson and crew split the EVTPP group off from the GPTPP organization for the sole purpose of “endorsing” JD.
As far as why Laurin lost, I suggest you ask him. It usually comes down to a bad campaign, not enough feet on the ground, etc. The bottom line is that each candidate owns their successes and failures.
Stephen, HOW in the world do you know that the EVTPP split for the reason of endorsing JD? The split occurred last March! The endorsement occurred JUST last month! You make up the facts to suit your imagination!
AND if there was “bad blood”, wouldn’t it have been directed TOWARDS Pam Stevenson by Kelly Townsend? GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!
IF Kelly couldn’t even take the time to get a photo and a campaign statement into the guide, she couldn’t have been serious about winning. The 11% would have elected Hendrix, NOT Urie!
In LD 6 I fail to see on what issues Dave Braswell and Amanda Reeve are moderate. you actually point out that both scored high as conservatives but you label them as moderates. How do you define a conservative? Braswell was endorsed by Arizona Right to Life as was Reeve but Klein supported a Republican Pro-abortion feminist group and was convicted of drunk driving. Do you have to be a pro-abortion convicted drunk driver to be considered a conservative now? If Klein, Seel and, Fitzgerald were your choice for the legislature, you made some bad choices.
Marc A, you’re attempted character assassination of Lori Klein doesn’t hold water. All those “charges” were aired ad nausiem during the campaign. Klein SUCCESSFULLY defended herself against all Braswell’s mud slinging.
Braswell’s RINO label is well deserved. He is bought and paid for by the teacher’s
union and most importantly he is a dead
issue. It’s over. Get over it.
Amanda Reeve helped raise money for Democrats at the 12 in 10 event. Reeve is endorsed by teacher’s, cop’s and firefighter’s unions – she is the liberal’s favorite Republican. She was endorsed by Chamber of Commerce and The Arizona Repulsive. As Braswell’s protoge she learned to earn her RINO stripes by working for them.
Re Steve Pierce: I am bristling at your reference, as I still don’t consider referring Prop 100 to the ballot as “voting for a tax increase.” It brings up a good point about their respective leadership potential. Pierce was the whip, Russell was not, and that makes a huge difference.
Pearce, as the lightning rod of conservatives, would make a poor choice of Senate President precisely because he is so good at what he does. He is sleeping in the bed he made for himself, like Ron Gould does. He will lose a lot of friends and support if he’s in a leadership role where he is forced to compromise and cajole and barter and trade and you know – be political. Pierce is a solid conservative but a clean slate, has proven leadership skills and does not have to answer to all the little groups and bloggers that Pearce does.
Incorrect, Mr. Anthony, I say that Reeve’s “votes quickly fall off on other issues.” For instance, on Constitutional Government, she scored worse than known moderates McLain and Tobin and as well as the liberal Michelle Reagan and slightly better than the liberal Adam Driggs. On voting to regulate the economy, Ms. Reeve got a D and that, to me, is a very telling score. On taxation, she scored behind Quelland and Driggs. And as I’ve iterated before, the Board of Supervisors ensured that their appointees supported Prop. 100. According to Goldwater, of 35 Republican legislators in the House, she came in 12th. She was the lowest scoring legislator in LD 6 according to the same report card. According to PAChyderm, she scored 17th out of 35 Republican legislators. Americans for Prosperity gave her a 68 and labeled her “Not Bad,” which is code for awful. That label is below “Hero of the Taxpayer,” “Champion of the Taxpayer” and “Friend of the Taxpayer.” There’s clearly room for improvement from Reeve. I went easy on her until you challenged me.
As for Braswell, I reported the good with the bad. I could have ignored his scores from Goldwater altogether and been very biased, but I didn’t. I attempted to be even-handed. But now that you challenge me, let’s see what AFP and PAChyderm have to say about Braswell’s scores. AFP gave Braswell a 45 and called him a “Friend of Big Government.” PAChyderm Coalition scored him 16th or 18 Republican Senators and called him a “Big Government Republican” for his performance in the 2010 General Session. I believe for the 7th Special session, Braswell may have come in first, but he scored only a 29 out of 100 and he was labeled a “Big Government Republican.” Gee, according to these scores, maybe there’s a REASON why he’s been labeled a moderate or a RINO by some.
As for Klein and her one-time donation to the WISH List, which no longer exists, I’ve never said any candidate is without his warts. In fact, I think I’ve said EVERY candidate this time around has his warts in previous writings or in recorded webcasts. Is her donation to WISH any worse than Braswell’s TWO donations to Democrats? Or Fitzgerald’s donation to Hillary Clinton? Let’s be fair here. If I’m not mistaken, Klein has plead that she didn’t understand that WISH was a pro-abort group just like Braswell has tried to explain away his giving to Democrats and Fitzgerald has tried to explain away his donation too.
As for Lori’s DUI, I’m not sure I’ve heard an explanation from her except maybe that people make mistakes. Usually Republicans don’t tolerate that kind of mistake, but they elected her by a considerable margin. Perhaps the voters felt it was just that important to unseat Braswell that they overlooked her mistake and defeated Braswell by about 20 points.
I’ll disagree with you, Mr. Anthony. Had I been in LD 6, I would have cast my vote for the Seel, Klein and Fitzgerald team and I heartily disagree that those votes would have been bad choices. To my mind, despite their flaws, those candidates would have voted the way I would more often than any other candidate.
Definition of conservative? Easy enough, adherence to the Republican platform, unwavering support for de minimis government, the lowest possible taxation, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, FAR less spending!
Stephen you have no idea what you are talking about.
To set the record straight we distanced ourselves from Kelly December of 2009 we did not endorse JD until July 17th 2010. Also Kelly never had a leadership role in the East Valley Tea Party we only coordinated events together and their was some talk about jointly setting up a non-profit.
Even though we had some issues with Kelly I invited her to the two Superbowl of Candidate events I organized, which she came to.
Stephen most people learn at a young age that there are two sides to every issue and is all you had to do is call and ask me what happened and I would have told you.
Preview,
You’re darned right voting to send Prop. 100 was not only ASSURING a tax increase, but it was a major cop-out by state legislators AND an utter failure of legislative leadership. As the story of Pontius Pilate illustrates, washing your hands doesn’t make you guilt-free. Those legislators specifically voted to put the special election on an odd date to ensure that their very organized constituencies would turn out in force and the average citizen would be steamrolled by the unions. It was a cynical tactic. No matter how much Randy Pullen may crow about high voter turnout, it’s all due to the teachers’ union, the fire organizations, the police organizations, the portion of the construction industry that stood to gain from building schools, the gullible and Democrats.
Had our legislators any spine, they would have told tax & spend Brewer to shove her tax increase and demanded more spending cuts to balance the budget. Some try to explain away their vote for the tax increase by stating that they were hoping for tax cuts that would have more than made up for the increase, but guess what? They didn’t get them. Next time, our legislators need to have the tax cuts IN HAND before they vote for any increases. They won’t though. They’ve always been spineless and our governors (Republican AND Democrat) have exercised an inordinate amount of control over our spending process.
Marcus, I’ll leave you to your friends Gorman and Gould who held out against their colleagues and ended up destroying the cuts attached to the referral. They scotched the tax cuts deal. That’s their right, but I just don’t see how they can uphold their constitutional responsibility for a bal bud along with their campaign promises. Not possible.
Colonial vs. Michele Reagan case – May:
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100520873
Preview,
I didn’t vote for Pam Gorman in the CD 3 primary, so, you’re not leaving me to anyone. As for Gould, if he “scotched the tax cuts deal,” I’d like to hear his explanation. He’s a hard-line conservative and I’m sure he had a good reason for doing what he did.
Allow me to correct “Preview”: The tax cut “Deal” was only a PROMISE of future tax cuts. The tax hike would have been voter protected but, the proposed tax cut would not go to the ballot thus they would not be voter protected. With the state budget still out of balance, do you really think those proposed tax cuts would be allowed to take effect? If you do, you have much more faith in the Legislature than I do.
Here, Here, Greg Western! Well said! As I would say to Mr. Kohut, “Facts are a stubborn things!” He seems to never let them get in the way of a good attack!
Kelly Townsend did not even run any kind of campaign. She must have been too busy with her Tea Party group, and working against some real conservatives, like JD. The 11% that voted for her would have certainly put Hendrix, NOT Urie into the house! Thanks Kelly!
Marcus,
It seems to me that Preview is one of these ‘good’ RINOs that just blames ALL of our woes on those ‘pesky’ conservatives. An example of that type of RINO is a leader in a northern Phoenix Tea Party, who stated that we need more moderates elected!
A moderate, in my opinion,is someone who’s too gutless to stand for conservative principles; and thus resents those who do!
Ron Gould, I understand your reasoning regarding your vote, and I think you took your position with good intentions and based on assumptions about how government works based on your experience. My only disagreement concerning your position is that the Equalization Property Tax would have been repealed by the deal. That was a real tax cut that would have been immediately achieved. For that reason, alone, the deal was a benefit for taxpayers.
In retrospect, I think the state would have been better off if you had gone along with the deal. If it had been early enough, the proposition would have been on a regular election day which would have boosted turn out, it is less likely the budget would have been structured as badly as it was to scare people into thinking education would have been cut so dramatically if the proposition failed, and there is still a small chance that there might have been tax cuts in addition to eliminating the equalization tax.
Ultimately, you voted to refer the tax to the voters anyway – after the equalization tax was reinstated.
It’s impossible to know how things will turn out in advance, so mistakes will be made. Nobody has a crystal ball. However, we should also strive to learn from our mistakes to avoid repeating them.
I think that your opposition to the compromise resulted in a worse situation than if you has gone along with it. Many people thought that would be the case, but you disagreed with them. It turns out that you were wrong this time, and I hope you will learn from what happened. Sometimes the best deal you can get is better than an ideal deal you can’t get.
Thank you very much for this run down. I found it very interesting. I am a precinct committeeman from LD4 and, I think, we won. I also help our church members make good voting decisions and this will help me in two years especially dealing with Districts other than 4. Onre major issue coming up just after the 2012 elections is the way to handle the rapid reduction of revenue when the billion-dollar tax increase goes away. Now is the time to get our ducks in a row.
Again, thanks for your work on this!!
I appreciate Sen Gould’s comments. I see this discussion as a bunch of good conservatives arguing about tactics and strategy rather than philosophy.
I have to point out that “voter protected” is an unconstitutional limitation on the very power of a legislature to address the problems at hand…the very nature of legislative power. So are entitlements. It’s one thing to question my faith in the legislature about promises, but I’d prefer to have a dialogue about the legislature’s faith in their own ability to perform their constitutional duties.
While many of the “conservative” wing of the Republican Party are so busy bashing Bill Konopnicki (the Primary IS OVER, isn’t it?), I call your attention to the following: Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment is as sacred as the first 10…”Thou shalt not speak ill of any other republican.”
Finally , while there is a lot of gloating over the Primary, there is a General Election to be won with Democratic registration majorities in Apache, Gila and Greenlee Counties.
Focus your efforts on getting the people that need to be elected, not bashing your fellow Republicans.
Greg and “Sam” (latest Steven Robinson incarnation?),
As far as what happened with GPTPP, EVTPP, the issue of endorsing JD and all the other stuff that became the hallmarks of the US Senate Primary, I did my homework and have first hand accounts of the inside story from when it all went down. So yah, I know what happened. It wasn’t pretty. It did damage in a lot of ways. What went down is the reason I no longer stop in to EVTPP on a routine basis. Facts are indeed stubborn things. Truth usually makes it through to the light of day over time.
Mr. Newlin,
If Wiki is to be believed, when Reagan followed his own advice, he lost primaries to Ford. When he abandoned the advice, he won. Apparently he parroted that line from a liberal Republican Party chairman and it didn’t do him much good. Wonder why.
Let me ask, where was the 11th when McCain was trying to unseat Rob Haney as LD 11 chairman? Where is the 11th Commandment on PoliticoMafioso or Vath’s faux Twitter account, JDRoseworth? Where was the 11th in the Senate primary since JANUARY before Hayworth got into the race? By all accounts, the 11th is dead. I’ve got a new 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not lie to the electorate about being conservative when, yea, thou art a RINO.
So, it’s invalid to assess the primaries and determine where conservatives won and where they lost? That was, after all, the thrust of my article. I was rather nice to Mr. Braswell, presenting both sides of the argument about his conservatism or lack thereof…until someone dared challenge my assertion. Is it against the 11th to defend my own analysis? If so, it’s worthless.
Sorry, Mr. Newlin, I utterly reject your assertion that I may be doing something wrong by trying to determine what happened in the primaries. I’m also not going to sit idly by when someone tries to tear apart what I say. In fact, Reagan was a tell-it-like-it-is kind of guy. Remember his statement that he “paid for this microphone”? Also, I can’t imagine, that Mr. Reagan would not have something to sat about Republicans abandoning their principles and thereby relegating themselves to the minority…especially when his own popular conservatism brought the deluge of liberal “neo-cons” into the party from the Democrats. Just because someone has an R next to their name doesn’t mean they hold true to Republican principles. As far as I’m concerned, if someone is going to betray Republican principles, you’ve shed your “R” and the 11th no longer applies, you’re fair game.
I see NO benefit in supporting candidates that dilute our brand, breed cynicism in the electorate and give rise to the sentiment that there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats and depress conservative participation in elections. Moderates are the “pale pastels” that Reagan warned us would not excite the masses. Conservatives are the “bold colors” he spoke about. Tom DeLay’s farewell speech to Congress underscored this when he said “partisanship is good.”
Finally, Mr. Newlin, there is NOTHING wrong with pointing out differences between the candidates ON THE ISSUES. Let me ask, were the attacks against Allen, Harper, Seel, Klein, Fitzgerald and other conservative candidates personal or on the issues? I’d say they were character assassinations. Were the criticisms of Nelson, Driggs, Koponicki and other moderates personal or on the issues? I’d say they were on the issues: their lack of adherence to Republican ideals.
Let me ask, was saying that conservatives suffered setbacks and experienced some victories gloating? It’d say it was a fair assessment with some wistfulness about not being more successful, not gloating. Are you sure you understand the definition of gloating? Again, the people we NEED to get elected are those who are going to have some spine, who are going to unwaveringly going to adhere to our principles. If they don’t, they’re no good to the cause of advancing liberty or ensuring that Republicans stay in the majority in the long term. As I said last night on Roundtable Politics, moderates are as good as Democrats because they’ll betray Republicans on the key issues, like Cap & Trade, like Obamacare, like Financial “Reform,” like amnesty…our moderate state legislators will do the same thing, just on the state level and it will get NO coverage because the media wants to protect the moderates to keep the ball rolling leftward.
Urie, a longtime big spender in the Town of Gilbert, survived because he is part of a cabal of spenders and moderates who were able to win off-year/high apathy/low turnout town council elections. That remnant was enough for him to carry into a legislative primary. Disappointingly. It’s very difficult for newcomers and outsiders to get past that cabal and win town council elections. Now they have spit one of their own into the legislature, where you can expect the Americans for Prosperity/Arizona to have a field day rating him. When their ratings come out next year, start at the bottom and you’ll quickly work your way up to Urie. He won’t win any “Friend of the Taxpayer” awards any time soon!
Ron,
I appreciate that bit of intel on Urie. Thanks!
Urie, by many accounts, is a fine human being and a very nice guy.
However, as an elected official, he lost me when he started talking about all of the new, innovative ways that California had found to tax people. I heard him use the dreaded phrase “we need to capture those revenue streams” at a Town of Gilbert meeting, and realized that he was of the mindset that a town that does not tax everything possible to tax is somehow doing a disservice.
Laurin lost by 400 votes. I think he would have won if he had just shown up to a few LD22 meetings. Many, many people liked Laurin’s voting record (which is of course the most important thing, but then said they felt like the man was inaccessible. He also might have won if Brett Petillo’s signatures had been challenged, or if Eddie Farnsworth had not endorsed Brett. Brett seems like a good guy but in a field with so many conservative candidates would have generated more future goodwill by dropping out of the race.
Kelly Townsend came away with 11% of the vote against candidates with far more experience and name recognition in a very crowded field; I think she cemented herself as a credible candidate and will do better if she runs again.
Hunter,
Don’t count on me to EVER vote for a tax hike. We already have plenty in the Legislature and Congress who will compromise on core principals. Being in the Legislature places a burden on my family and my business. To be just another compromiser just would not be worth the effort.
Mr. Kelley, I am a PC from LD4 & applaud your work on this analysis &your recognition of how the ongoing soap opera in our LD4 will impact the Arizona’s agenda & possibly 2 seats in the Legislature.
Thanks for wading into the water on our behalf.
Jumping,
Your thanks means more to me than you know. I appreciate your positive comments.
Stephen you still have it wrong! Whoever told you otherwise is, how shall I say it, truth challenged.
Greg,
I watch people closely to determine if their acts match their words, if their acts follow sound morals and ethics. My comments are based on first hand accounts of people who were there, have demonstrated that they are worthy of my trust and who hold to high moral and ethical standards.
I actively attended and supported EVTPP and its efforts and helped with PC recruitment for Pinal County residents. You, I and others in EVTPP leadership talked on multiple occasions and it looked to me that things were going in a good direction. Somewhere along the way EVTPP’s leadership lost its moral and ethical compass. Politics became more important than principles and the overall good of the Tea Party movement. That saddens me. I wish the members of EVTPP’s groups well and recommend to its leadership that rigorous honesty and soul searching is in order to look back at what happened and learn from it.
Marcus,
Have watched several candidate interviews on your television program…
What an opportunity for voters to glean real information on significant issues …
Can only hope that there are enough thinking folks out there who are still interested in truth rather than personality and image who are listening to you and the others who interview……..Kudos to you for a job well done, and one that very few others are doing…….Leah
As always, the compliments mean more than you know! I deeply appreciate them!
Greg,
Tuesday night’s meeting of the EVTPP was excellent! Shane is an outstanding teacher, and I look forward to more fantastic interaction and training. I was really inspired by all the discussion.
Also, I’m glad that there was none of the negative influences there that I’ve seen in the past.
Kohut, proves to be the “truth-challenged” person in this discussion. He claims that he’s attended the meetings!? THEN he says,
my comments are based on first hand accounts of people who were there.
We know better. It’s better to just ignore him
Sam,
What I said regarding the GPTPP and EVTPP split was that I received first hand accounts from people I find trustworthy who were directly involved in those events. Reading is fundamently. Try it sometime.
Stephen Kohut said the following on September 8th, 2010 at 9:20 am
“I watch people closely to determine if their acts match their words, if their acts follow sound morals and ethics.”
“I actively attended and supported EVTPP and its efforts…”
Did I not read these words correctly? Greg was/is there the whole time. Pam Stevenson was there as well. So whomever YOU seem to find “trustworthy” must either have been at a ‘different’ EVTPP, or are NOT nearly so trustworthy, as you might claim.
Your first claim on Sept 6th, “There was bad blood by the leadership of the EVTPP toward Kelly when Pam Stevenson and crew split the EVTPP group off from the GPTPP organization for the sole purpose of “endorsing” JD.”
I asked you earlier why would there be bad blood directed towards Kelly over the split? It would naturally be directed by Kelly towards them. Second, your statement that it broke off for the sole purpose of endorsing is now clearly a lie by either those you find trustworthy or yourself; or an uninformed and irresponsible opinion. Which is it?
Lastly, you said “Reading is fundamently”? Writing is also “Fundamental” Perhaps you should try try it sometime. As everyone can tell, I read your words correctly; both times.
I’m a bit new to the whole “political blog” and as such I’ve read quite a bit on the conservatives I have (should be voting for in November). I’m in district 4. It seems burgess and harper are conservative, but only burgess has teamed up/linked to bundgaard and from what i’ve read on here there are old country roads less crooked than he is! Is this really a win? How does a conservative vote for someone so shady? Is it another klein thing from the other district where we just dismiss it? Arms dealers, tickets, a record, selling trucks that aren’t his geez…what should I expect next?