Archives for March 28, 2011

Guest Opinion: DeeDee Garcia Blase ‘So why be a Republican?’

By Neal Goldberg

It seems as though not only are you correct on your assessment of Ms. Blase as a stand alone organization. She is decidedly someone who is looking for attention in the worst sort of way. One look at her website is proof of that. But she is actually dangerous to the Latino Community because she is not even aware of the issues that face the Hispanic community.

On a facebook thread regarding a Washington Post article concerning republicans having a hard time arousing the Latino population, She commented that she was partial to George J. Bush for President…. because she had a bias (Latino I am presuming). I told her that he was a Bush and a Globalist. What came next shocked me. This was her reply….

“Globalism is a helluva lot better than isolationist views, Neal. Healthy trade with other countries prompts relationship building. You cut that off and there is absolutely no hope for “world peace”. Liberals are funny people. They think peace can be miraculously discovered all on it’s own. You you have healthy world-wide trade (money exchanged)…the global climate is much better. It’s not perfect, but it’s a helluva lot better than finding NO common denominator at all.” 

While I will leave out my angst about her comment, I will just apprise you of my response…

“You have GOT to be taken the hook line and sinker DeeDee. Its as if we didn’t trade with anyone for thousands of years and all of a sudden broke the trade barriers! You are saying nothing but talking points DeeDee and unfortunately, either ……you are now brainwashed or you just don’t know better…don’t know which! Has free trade been a help or hinder? More jobs? No. More Immigration? Yes. Capital flight? Yes. The absolute rise in Corporatism? Yes. A healthy economy? No. Now all of a sudden you drag the word PEACE in with all of this and mix it with Liberalism?? You are so freakin mixed up, you don’t know what the hell is going on do you? Before “Free” trade, you had PROTECTIONISM, where each country had its own protection called “tariffs” on goods being imported into their own country, and when the protectionism is lifted, it is a race to the bottom. Or have you forgotten what Free trade has done to Mexico, or Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador where most of Latin America is coming for jobs. Or are you now so REPUBLICAN that you are willing to forsake your own people and enjoy the slavery that now exists in our Agriculture under the guise of free trade? If that is republicanism, I want nothing to do with slave traders. I am truly saddened and disappointed in you DeeDee. And so should anyone reading this post.” 

Instead of replying of course, she deleted my post because it was to much to answer that post.

So, in other words, DeeDee is only a Republican because she thinks that Democrats are baby killers…

“Before I give you the short answer, I have to preface this by saying that Deedee agrees with the Democrats on all these issues that affect minorities or immigrants. Prop 107, SB1070, etc.

So why be a Republican?

Simple answer: Because Democrats are baby-killers (abortion). ” (See

So, to sum this all up, Blase is ready to sell her soul, and her own heritage, for the simplicity of her views on right to life issues.

For the Good of the Latino Population, she needs to be called out for what she is. A Democrat in sheep’s clothing pretending to be a Republican because its easier to get noticed as a Hispanic woman as a Republican, with Pro-life views willing to sell everyone out for that one purpose.

I hope this helps you in putting Blase where she needs to be put. Out to pasture where she cannot do any harm.

Will Supreme Court let the government favor taxpayer-funded candidates?

By Nick Dranias

Goldwater Institute

The Goldwater Institute has fought Arizona’s “Clean Elections” system all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to ask one basic question: Can the state manipulate the political game to silence privately-financed candidates and drive them out of elections in favor of government-funded candidates?

The Court answered “no” last June,  at least temporarily, when it suspended the matching funds portion of Arizona’s system. But the Court’s extraordinary intervention was not the last word, as that action came nearly six months before the Court accepted the Goldwater Institute’s lawsuit for review, as well as a second case from the Institute for Justice. Only after the Court hears oral arguments today in Washington, D.C., will the question finally be answered for good.

The matching funds component of Arizona’s system is clearly designed to hobble candidates who project their campaign messages to the public in the traditional manner, supported by private donations and personal funds. For every dollar raised or spent by a traditional candidate, the state awards nearly a dollar in subsidies to each opposing government-funded candidate. That means when a traditional candidate faces three government-funded candidates, every dollar he spends will trigger nearly three dollars in government subsidies to oppose him.

Likewise, if independent political groups do anything other than oppose traditional candidates, the state will award nearly a dollar in subsidies to each competing government-funded candidate for every dollar they spend. The government thus systematically encourages independent groups to oppose traditional candidates.

It is very dangerous business for the government to manipulate elections in this way. The electoral process is supposed to check government power. A system that silences traditional candidates in order to expand opportunities for government-funded candidates cannot check government power. For the sake of free speech and the integrity of the electoral system, the Supreme Court must finally stop Arizona from picking winners and losers.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: McComish v. Bennett

Arizona Republic: Supreme Court weighs Clean Elections funds match

Wall Street Journal: Government Shouldn’t Play Election Favorites

Washington Post: Supreme Court to decide Arizona’s unique campaign financing law

Christian Science Monitor: Supreme Court to decide Arizona’s unique campaign financing law

Yankee Institute: Let Voters Decide, Not Gov’t

Institute for Justice: Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett