A Conservative’s Post-Mortem on the Congressional Races: Qualified Victories for Conservatives

Conservatives made some good gains in the Congressional races. I think conservatives had wins in the Congressional races because they’re sexier than state races. This is perhaps where we shined the brightest since we lost wholesale in the state-wide races and, as you’ll see in my next article, the legislative races were a real mixed bag. I’d argue that since the federal government is a government of limited powers and the states are governments of general powers, we need to be focusing a lot more on state races than we currently do. Same with city, county, school board and other elections. Again, there’s LOTS of work for the TEA Partiers to do if they’ll just apply themselves.

CD 1
I’ve got to admit, CD 1 isn’t my strong suit and I don’t know a ton about Gosar. Paul Gosar won in CD 1 with about 38% of the vote. Looking at the FEC reports, he had the money. He also had a Palin endorsement. In Arizona, that shouldn’t mean much to conservatives since she endorsed McCain too, but apparently it meant something to the district. It looks like from his webpage he had the support of Sheriffs Arpaio and Babeu as well.

Sydney Hay came in second with about 23% of the vote. Not too shabby since she’s run in the district a couple of times before. She had name ID and money that rivaled Gosar’s. However, Sydney threw her hat in the ring late in the game. Sydney has been a movement conservative for a long time. To my mind, the fact that she was Alan Keyes’ campaign manager is all I need to know about her. Keyes is a consummate conservative, but in recent years, he’s acted on the crazy side.

The surprise in the race is that newcomer Bradley Beauchamp beat Rusty Bowers. Bradley was nice enough to come on Grassroots Interviews. He styles himself a constitutionalist and is passionate about his beliefs. As a constructive criticism, his passion often comes across as anger and that can be off-putting. I’d like to see Beauchamp run for office again.

Rusty Bowers of course is a lobbyist and former state legislator. The lobbyist Mike Williams once told me that being a lobbyist pretty much precludes you from winning office. He was right in Matt Salmon’s case and in Rusty’s case, but I remain skeptical about his adage.

The others might be good guys, but this was a crowded field and they failed to broach even 10% and to be frank aren’t worth mentioning.

Simply by looking at Gosar’s webpage, he seems like a relatively conservative guy. I hope that he truly is. It would be a ray of hope for conservatives and one of the too few wins in our column. The next test will be for Gosar to beat Ann Kirpatrick, but then comes the REAL test: will he have the spine to be a conservative icon like Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling and to a lesser extent Paul Ryan or will he be subverted by the RINO McCainiacs like Flake and Shadegg. I pray he has backbone.

CD 2
No surprises that Trent Franks annihilated Black by an 80-20 margin. Since Shadegg and Flake abandoned conservatives, Trent Franks has been our lone conservative in Congress. He has made some missteps, like endorsing the RINO Sen. Nelson in LD 12and endorsing McCain before JD Hayworth got in the race, but again, right now, he’s the best we conservatives have in Congress and he’s a darned good Congressman. We’re lucky to have him.

CD 3
I’ll be the first to admit that I called this race incorrectly. With Niecegate, dirty.com, the hint of nepotism and inexperience and all the old Bush-Quayle establishment money flowing into Ben Quayle’s coffers from out of state, I thought he was going to be beat. I was wrong. I think the Quayle win was the most impressive of election night.

Many commenters have said money and name ID were the most key in this election cycle. The Quayle win would seem to prove that assertion correct. Apparently, he was able to paper the district with mailers. Again, since I haven’t been back in the state long enough to be considered a high-propensity voter, I wasn’t targeted by many campaigns, so I didn’t see all the campaigning many candidates in my area did. By many accounts, the Quayle effort could be compared to a deluge.

Luckily, Quayle can fundraise. Hulburd, the Democrat nominee has around three quarters of a million dollars. While the Democrats may THINK they’re going to have a field day smearing Quayle, this will NOT be a repeat of Harry Mitchell vs. J.D. Hayworth. This is a Republican year and CD 3 has a strong Republican registration advantage.

To my mind, Moak coming in second was also a surprise. His fundraising was second only to Quayle’s. Moak seemed to be a relatively conservative guy when he came on Grassroots Interviews. I’ll also assert, as many have, that immigration was also a key issue this cycle. I believe his opponents were successfully able to label him as a supporter of the DREAM Act, a measure that upset the anti-illegal immigration crowd. After my interview of Mr. Moak, his answers about the DREAM Act seemed to be less than a direct and emphatic, “No, I don’t support the DREAM Act.” If he had not been successfully characterized to the voter’s mind as a supporter of the DREAM Act, he might have edged out Quayle. There was only about a 3,000 vote difference between Moak and Quayle.

Waring coming in third was also a surprise. I had picked him to win this contest because I know he was knocking on doors every day. While I may have picked him to win, I did not want him to win. He was a McCain staffer and while some have said he’s shown some independence, I would never have trusted him not to carry McCain’s water in the House. If McCain subverted our Arizona delegation, he wouldn’t have even had to try with Waring. I am happy with Waring’s loss simply because I worry about his politics. To my mind, he’s not conservative enough. Mark my words, Jim will be back. I believe he’s ambitious. He’ll run for something else soon and trust me, he’ll win because he knows how to campaign and he campaigns hard.

I never understood the hype around Vernon Parker. Vernon was a Bush appointee. Bush was a liberal Republican so it might stand to reason that Vernon is a moderate or liberal too because he was tapped by Bush to serve in the Administration. One bit about Parker that even he did not publicize, to his detriment, that would have helped him shake off the mantle of moderate or liberal, is that he worked on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. I also felt like Vernon got Arpaio’s endorsement simply because both are Jason Rose clients. It didn’t seem like a sincere endorsement to me. I mean, really, when you think of stopping illegal immigration, is Vernon Parker’s name the first that pops into your head? Don’t get me wrong, I have come to like the Sheriff and I honestly do appreciate the fact that he endorsed so many candidates. I’ve thanked Arpaio in person for that. I think three other things killed Vernon’s chances. First, he seemed wishy-washy or inconsistent when he dropped out of the governor’s race and ran for Congress instead. I was thankful he dropped out of the governor’s race because I supported Dean and I thought Vernon was a distraction. Since CD 3 includes Paradise Valley, I sorta felt like his switch in races was cynical in that he decided to abandon the Governor’s race for a seat that had his constituency as a larger percentage of the electorate. Second, I’m skeptical of anyone who’s in city government. City government is not a bastion of conservatism, of belief in de minimis government. Unless someone in city government is really making waves slashing and burning unnecessary city services and being a total junkyard dog attacking wasteful city spending, they’re likely moderate or liberal. Third, the playing of the race card in was desperate and perfidious. Calling someone a “poster boy,” isn’t racist in the slightest. Calling a black man, “boy” is. The term was used to assert white dominance over blacks in the South. I’m a Southerner by birth and the grace of God. Vernon wasn’t called, “boy” by anyone…except maybe me. Before the “poster boy” flap, at the Sheriff’s birthday party in Cave Creek, I asked Vernon when he was coming on Grassroots Interviews. Without thinking, I addressed him as “boy.” I truly meant it in a jocular and familiar sense. I realized later that the term had racist overtones and I sought Vernon out to look him in the eye and sincerely apologize about any unintended connotations. Vernon said he hadn’t heard me call him that and said he wouldn’t have taken offense. That told me that Vernon’s “outrage” at the “poster boy” comments was manufactured. We’re in a time where the leftists have shrilly cried “racist” at every turn. We’re in a time where the term has been so overused, we’ve started to turn a deaf ear to it and dismiss the claims. We’re not letting the leftists shut down the debate anymore with that now meaningless and overused brand.

Gorman and Crump were two LD 6 conservatives that likely split the votes of their constituencies. Pam Gorman certainly campaigned harder than Sam Crump. Crump certainly had a hard time raising money. Not only did I vote for Sam Crump, but I had hoped he would have remained in the Attorney General’s race. Had he stayed in that race, with Thomas and Horne destroying each other, he might have been the victor…but more than likely, he would have split the conservative vote with Thomas and assured Horne’s victory. My trouble with Gorman is her support of moderate or liberal candidates. She supported Tony Bouie over Carl Seel and Sam Crump for the LD 6 House. Tony is a nice guy, I appreciated the fact that he came on Grassroots Interviews, I’m just hesitant to believe he’s a hard-core conservative and I hope he doesn’t hold my comments against me because I’d like to remain friends with him. Gorman also supported Peggy Neely. To my mind, conservatives should NEVER, EVER, EVER support moderate or liberal candidates. To me, it’s unforgiveable. Gorman did it not once, but twice. I think both Gorman and Crump are ambitious and we’ll see them run for office again. I can honestly say I wish them both the best of luck.

I’m SO happy that the Jan Brewer-loving and pro-death Paulina Morris finished near the bottom. She had an organized and ardent pro-death constituency. I can only hope she and Hull, the two pro-death candidates, split the pro-death vote. But more than the Life issue, Paulina Morris’ ads were atrocious. Find out who did her commercials and avoid them like the plague. The impression I was left with after her first TV ad was that she was an angry woman marching around behind a desk stabbing her finger at me. That’s not a way to PERSUADE me to vote for you. Her “frank” assessment of the other candidates was also a colossal disaster. There’s a certain decorum that’s expected of Congressmen. It’s why Joe Wilson got reprimanded for correctly stating that Obama is a liar during the State of the Union address. Saying she “damned well approved this message,” violated that decorum. So did Quayle’s ad stating that he’d “knock the Hell out of Washington.” However, sexist or not, I think we generally still expect ladies to act like ladies and Morris’ ad was not lady-like. I truly hope this is Morris’ political obituary, at least in terms of running for office. We Republicans don’t need her for much more than voting for our nominees. Otherwise, she needs to register as a Democrat.

Ed Winkler had an amazingly tin ear. He committed suicide in front of the Arizona Republican Assembly by stating that he thought Jeff Flake was on the mark on illegal immigration. He had neither the district-wide name ID or the money or the position on illegal immigration necessary to win. I knew he’d be an also-ran and he finished just about where I privately suspected he would.

Bob Branch came in second to last. Sad. He’s a good guy and my impression is that he’s genuinely conservative. The only black mark I know about on him is that he apparently dislikes Prop. 13. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, I hope Bob Branch stays involved in politics and I hope he runs for something else soon, like perhaps the state legislature. If he does, I’d be happy to support him. Ultimately, he didn’t have a lot of cash, he didn’t have a lot of name ID, and he didn’t have an Arpaio endorsement. Though negatives to overcome.

LeAnn Hull never had a chance. She came in dead last and had I publicly made predictions before the primaries, I would have stated that she would come in last. She’s a passionate woman, but comes across as crazy. Her ad done in the toilet where she says we’re flushing money in Washington just looks thoroughly insane. She’s pro-death and when I asked her about amnesty, she at first said that she didn’t believe in it, then explained in a round about way that she thought there should be a path to citizenship. She should have started her political career running for the state legislature, but I would not counsel her to run for anything at all ever again. Her positions on the Life issue and amnesty and her inability to raise money should be clear indicators that she’ll never go anywhere in politics. LeAnn said she didn’t want to raise money. That’s a cop out. While having the most money is not a guarantor of a win, have NO money guarantees defeat. Her position on fundraising is more proof of her lack of a grasp on reality.

Is the Quayle win a win for conservatives? I’m undecided. He has at least one conservatarian on his staff that truly believes Ben is conservative. I hope he’s right. If the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, we need to remember that Bush picked Dan Quayle as his VP running mate to appeal to the conservatives. I truly hope Ben Quayle makes his dad look like a sissy liberal. I’ll be voting for Ben in the general election over Hulburd and I’m confident that Ben WILL win a seat to Congress. Get used to saying, “Congressman Quayle.”

CD 4
Janet Contreras smoked admitted progressive candidate Jose Penalosa by almost 19 points. Yes, Janet is my client, but I can truly say CD 4 made a VERY wise choice by nominating Janet. I’m sure Janet will want me to be nice to Jose because that’s just the type of classy woman she is, but I’m going to take a moment to talk about Jose Penalosa’s campaign strategy. That I can tell, Jose’s strategy was to show up on just about every Spanish speaking media outlet and put campaign signs in downtown Phoenix which has a very transitory population of workers that come from a multitude of districts. He wasn’t targeting constituents at all by doing that. His signs should have been in the residential areas of CD 4. As for targeting the Spanish-speaking, I don’t see the logic in that either. Even Hispanics will admit that Hispanics aren’t high efficacy voters as they should be. Now, there’s been speculation that Penalosa might be a Pastor plant or even a McCain plant, but there’s also speculation that Penalosa ran for Congress just to advertise his law firm which defends illegals. His campaign strategy sure seemed to target those same illegals who listen to Spanish radio.

This is a win for conservatives. Now we need to really help Janet get the 9K or 10K more votes she needs to topple Ed Pastor. As Janet says, we need to stop spreading the lie that pastor is not vulnerable. In this Republican year and with a stellar candidate like Janet, he IS vulnerable.

CD 5
Conservative David Schwiekert beat moderate Jim Ward by slightly more than 12 points. Schweikert had name ID, money, and a strong stance on immigration. It was a recipe for a win.

Ward’s ads were pure perfidy. Attacking Schweikert as a career politician? It’s been a while since he’s held office. Attacking Schweikert for losing to Mitchell in a year when Republicans lost across the board? I guess in bad years for Republicans no one should challenge the Democrats? I think the voters saw through Ward’s thin logic.

Now, it’s time for some frank talk with Susan Bitter Smith. How many times have you run for office and lost? You’re now officially a perennial candidate and perennial loser. Arizonans have you figured out as a moderate or RINO and you’ve been outed as such on this blog innumerable times. Please, stop running for office. You can’t win. We want you in the party to vote for our nominees, but your ambition has been soundly rejected time and again. I’d suggest taking the hint.

Some TEA Partiers supported Chris Salvino. He came in fourth and garnered less than 10%. I have friends that worked for his campaign and were supporters, but I have to think that Dr. Salvino might have fared better if he had run for a legislative seat out of the gate.

The other also rans aren’t worth mentioning their results were so poor.

This is a total win for conservatives. Almost 59K people turned out to vote in the Republican primary. Only 24K, less than half of the Republican votes, turned out to vote for Mitchell. That’s a heartening statistic in a Republican year. I’m sure the Leftists will argue that Mitchell hasn’t bothered to run a campaign yet since he wasn’t facing a primary.

CD 6
That Jeff Flake beat Jeff Smith by a 2-1 margin is no surprise. I believe I predicted Flake’s win, not like that was too difficult to predict. Despite all the black marks against Jeff Flake, he is a leviathan in the district. He certainly had the name ID and money to command the field. Even Russell Pearce had the wisdom not to challenge Flake. Flake started out his Congressional career as a staunch conservative, but he has been subverted by McCain and the open borders crowd. He has voted for ENDA, he sponsored the STRIVE Act, he has proposed Cap & Trade legislation and he broke his term limit pledge. Flake has become a disaster.

I HAVE to chalk this up as a win for moderates and a loss for conservatives. CD 6 was presented with a conservative alternative to Flake and they rejected him. Flake will continue to move left. He’s lost his way. We’d love to have Flake back in the conservative fold, but I’m not holding out hope.

CD 7
Myers may have had some money, but that didn’t help him beat Ruth McClung. Ruth campaigned hard. I saw her everywhere. I saw Myers once. Granted, I don’t live in CD 7. Let me ask, if we should have voted for Myers because he’s a millionaire and he had the cash to beat Grijalva, then why didn’t he spend the cash to defeat Ruth? Myers ran a poor campaign. I’ve also got to ask if Myers is dedicated to defeating Grijalva, is he going to max out to McClung now?

The shocker here was that Robert Wilson, who made an attempt at campaigning, lost to perennial candidate and nut job Joe Sweeney.

This has to be counted as a conservative win. The real test is for Ruth to run hard against Mr. “Boycott Arizona” Grijalva. He’s utter leftist scum and hates America and his own state. Democrats should be ashamed for electing this guy and returning him to office.

CD 8
Jesse Kelly, a newcomer, beat a former state legislator with more money. This is proof that money isn’t everything, but it’s helpful. Jesse campaigned hard. For a while at the beginning, I thought he was the only guy in the race. Something else that may have hurt Paton was his late entry into the race. Paton has never been a conservative legislator in the mold of Harper or Gould or Seel or Burgess. I bet we see Paton run for something else in the future.

If Jesse makes it to Congress, and I hope he does, I hope he is unwaveringly conservative. I hope he resists McCain’s attempts to subvert him. We need him to stand strong.

I have to chalk this up to a win for conservatives due to Paton’s middle of the road record. Since Giffords is considered vulnerable, I expect Jesse to get a flood of cash from the RNC.

Conservatives and TEA Partiers, you did OK. I give you a B+…but that’s not an A+. There’s work to be done. You need to STAY involved and be involved in ALL races and elections. Don’t give up!


  1. TrueAZConservative says

    It is almost comical the way you (and Crump supporters in general) perseverate on the fact that Gorman supported Bouie over Carl Seel. Carl Seel may vote conservative, but he is exactly the type of entitled politician that people do not like. I assume that Gorman supported Bouie over Seel because she had occasion to meet Seel, and couldn’t stand him…that’s how I feel. And further, to call Carl Seel conservative is on overstatement anyway. Carl Seel has used Clean Elections funding everytime he has run for the House. That alone is enough for me to conclude that he is a poser and not truly a conservative. But moreover, if you take a look-see at his campaign finance disclosures–they are public records, anyone can request them–you will see that over the last several election cycles (in which he has only won once), he has spent thousands on his little “Carl mobile,” he has purchased more than one computer, a GPS system, a stereo system, and a television. Yes, all of this must be very important to run a campaign. Not only does he use taxpayer monies for his campaign, but then he buys personal items with the money. This does not seem like conservatism to me. I was relieved to see that Carl Seel will no longer be in the House come January!

  2. “Now, it’s time for some frank talk with Susan Bitter Smith. How many times have you run for office and lost? You’re now officially a perennial candidate and perennial loser. Arizonans have you figured out as a moderate or RINO and you’ve been outed as such on this blog innumerable times. Please, stop running for office. You can’t win. We want you in the party to vote for our nominees, but your ambition has been soundly rejected time and again. I’d suggest taking the hint.”

    Marcus, going through life as an overweight, hairless, dickless moron will get you nowhere. I suggest you take your halfwitted posts and shove them up your huge, nasty ass,

  3. Marcus, Biteme is a loser, you are right. I am very upset that Flake won, he is a RINO and why the citizens of Arizona do not pay attention to what their elected officials are doing is beyond me. But if they did, McCain would never have gotten back in.

  4. you better check the numbers again. As of 4:48 pm Carl Seel is in second.

  5. Let’s also not forget that many of the RINO candidates run as conservatives in the primary. McCain, for all intents and purposes, ran to the right of JD. I voted for JD, and as a resident of CD 6, voted for Jeff Smith. Flake is out of step with the district, but not enough people take interest in the race.

  6. Marcus Kelley says

    Isn’t there an adage about the intelligence of those who use profanity to communicate? I must have been exactly on the mark to cause such an outraged and inflammatory reaction. I’ll take your response as an, “I’m enraged that you’re absolutely right and I’m impotent to change the fact that you ARE right.” Thanks for the compliment!

  7. A useful summary. Thanks.
    The comments about CD-1 are too true. Not sure it is anyone’s strong suit this time around. Not sure about Goser, just guardedly hopeful, same about how you described Beauchamps comes off – real potential, needs some more polish.
    Good start, though. These things take time, and persistence.
    A lot will be determined by how those two cooperate to unseat Fitzpatrick, which is the No. 1 goal of all this right now.

  8. Oof. “Kirkpatrick.”

  9. nightcrawler says

    Overall, I agree with your analysis Marcus.

    CD3 was full of irony…

    Parker worked for Bush who raised money for Quayle.

    Quayle ran away from the TheDirty.com which actually asked people to vote for him.

    Crump stood behind JD every step of the way, in meetings, photo ops and on his own campaign materials, only to be stood up at the conservative alter, he went down on the JD ship (USS Loyalty) without an endorsement.

    Gorman’s automatic weapon ad wound up getting more coverage on MSNBC than FOX.

    You are right Crump should have run for AG as originally planned. That would have helped him and Parker.

    Bouie (who is a nice guy) didn’t win because as we all know anyone from the U of A is prone to choke on the big stage. Rose Bowl NOT.


    David and Susan sitting in a tree K I S S.. (you know the rest). She did him a huge favor by peeling votes off of Ward. Notice how nice David was to her this time around. Salvino will be getting a Christmas card as well.

  10. David & Susan really went after each other two years ago, but they both played pretty nice this time around. Hopefully that will bode well in David’s rematch with Harry.

  11. To Marcus Kelley:

    Please answer me one question, Marcus. How the hell do people like yourself continue to claim that Jeff Flake has left the “conservative fold”?

    Look at the facts:
    – CQ did an empirical study of voting records in Congress and found him more opposed to Obama than any other Congressman. How is that abandoning the “conservative fold”?
    – National Taxpayers Union just named him the #1 Friend of the Taxpayer for the 7th year in a row! His first couple of years he only lost to Ron Paul, but now Paul comes in second! How is that abandoning the “conservative fold”?
    – Citizens Against Government Waste gave him a higher rating than any member of Congress this year, and recognized that he has the highest lifetime rating of any member of Congress. How is that abandoning the “conservative fold”?

    You see what I mean? If you can’t call Flake a conservative, then I submit that the spirit of Goldwater Conservatism is dead indeed. The full thrust and import of the anti-Flake crowd centers on one issue: immigration. Even in that instance, there are small differences between candidates. In my opinion, these differences do not make or break a candidate. If we can agree that you agree with Flake probably 95% of the time- and on that 95% he is as good as it gets- should that 5% of disagreement preclude him from being a member of the “conservative fold”?

    In fact, I know he is still a conservative. Why? Because in one of the most conservative districts in the country, he was voted in to office. I, and most of the conservatives I know, voted for him. There is a small cadre of intense opposition that detests Flake; the Russell Pearce flavor of “law and order” conservatives. However, you don’t have to be cut in the mold of Russell Pearce to be a conservative. Flake takes after the originator of the conservative movement: Barry Goldwater.

  12. Marcus Kelley says

    You are demonstrably wrong on the opposition to Flake centering on immigration issues. It has to do with his abandonment of free market principles. Both his vote for ENDA and his Cap & Tax bill shows he no longer believes in the free market. If Flake did believe in the free market, he would have voted against ENDA and he would never have proposed any kind of Cap & Tax regime.

  13. No, I’m pretty sure the real opposition to Flake centers on immigration. His last two opponents (2004 and 2010) have both centered their campaigns around that issue and tried to scare everyone into thinking Flake was for “amnesty.”

    I’m sorry that I don’t know what went into his reasoning on ENDA, but the cap and trade legislation explanation is easy, if not free market based.

    (1) First and foremost, this piece of legislation was put out there to call the Democrats’ bluff on cap and trade. Buy calling it a tax (which it is), they couldn’t hide behind what they were really trying to do. If you want to vote on the issue, Flake said, let’s not lie about what we’re doing.

    (2) This reason is probably the more important, yet more complex of the two. First, everyone, including Republicans, have said we need to use less oil. Democrats claim to want to save the environment, while Republicans recognize the dangers with spending so much money on foreign oil, which in the end funds terrorism. This is the important part- he proposed a revenue NEUTRAL tax! Whatever the tax on carbon would be, we would offset it with a reduction in the payroll tax. As any good free-market economist will tell you, it is much better to tax the factors of production (e.g. oil), than to tax labor. So actually, from a purely theoretical standpoint, Flake’s legislation was not an abomination to the free-market. Many free-market economists would support such legislation.

    However, it is easy for local talk radio and opposing candidates to demagogue and mislead on something like this. The average voter doesn’t have the desire to wade through some long-winded explanation of why the bill Flake proposed was actually not a bad thing. It’s much easier for the opposition to scare people into thinking Flake is a global warming believer, and that he wants to tax their wallet for it.

  14. I was worried about Schweiker before and continue to be… I was looking around at some of the liberal blogs to see what they were saying about schweikert and came across this….


    Not only did Salvino find this gem for the Dems, but now they are using it… It shows that all of Davids income for the last year and a half was profiting off people who are losing their homes! Now usually I wouldnt care what a guy does for a living but when you run for Congress it matters! How could David have been this dumb to snatch up over 300 homes that were being forclosed on in order to make money…

    This is the kind of stuff I worried about with David and now its all coming out…

    This is the website the AZ dems have already… http://www.yourlosshisgain.com/

    Thanks Salvino for helping them with this… you moron… This ad is quite effective and hard hitting

  15. Now I know why David is so evasive when he’s asked for details about his job.

  16. Tucson Conservative says

    Go Ruth!!! You have just one more guy to beat!!!!

  17. CDNMR, you are absolutely correct on your assessment of Jeff Flake. Flake called the Dem’s bluff with a revenue-neutral carbon tax (which actually a number of influential Libertarian thinkers would approve of as a ‘free-market’ treatment of negative externalities). It was pretty succesful at revealing the Dems hypocrisy on the subject.

    It’s pretty telling that the only people that think Flake has ‘lost his way’ are the rabid immigration-baters, who just can’t understand what a real ‘free market’ means…

  18. Jeff Flake wants to give away American jobs to illegal aliens through the “STRIVE Act.” There is a reason Flake’s best friend in Congress is Luis Gutierrez.

    Flake is no conservative and if he has his way 20 million freshly minted democrats will soon be lining up at the polls.

  19. ^^^^^
    And to proove my point….

  20. Oh my gosh, JB. It’s so good to know that a fellow rational, free-marketeer comments on this sight. Tex, here, is the shining example of a lack of understanding of markets.

    Flake’s opponent, as well as the other Russell Pearce Republicans, claim that allowing guest-workers in this program will lead to a loss in “good American jobs.” That line of reasoning shows a deep and fundamental lack of understanding about economics. They employ the same reasoning as liberals that oppose outsourcing of “good American jobs.” However, despite the liberal claims, outsourcing benefits everyone, just ask David Ricardo. Likewise, guest-workers actually provide a benefit to the economy. I guarantee that any free-market economist would attest to it.

    And Tex, his best friends in Congress are actually guys like Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, and John Shadegg. Pretty good company, don’t you think?

  21. edit: “sight” should be “site” ooof

  22. Tucson Vice says

    Comrade Kelly,

    CD7: Congressman Grijalva could endorse his Republican opponent and she still wouldn’t have a prayer. Hates ‘Merica? Seems like an awfully unchristianly judgment to make. Personally, I am convinced that teabaggers hate ‘Merica. Why else would they exalt corrupt morons like Hayworth and Palin?

    CD8: You can thank the ADP and their Payday Paton campaign for your “conservative win.” Think about what that might mean for a while.

    I’m sure your readers are happy as hell about their B+. Its the best grade many of them have ever received.

  23. Johnny and Bill.. Look I understand that the dems are going to look for any way possible they can to sling mud and to make us all forget about what Harry has done (or not done)in Congress.. But here is the problem and what both Chris and the little ad put out fails to mention. Schweikert DID NOT buy these homes from the homeowners. He bought them from the bank. So, that would mean that the house had already gone through the foreclosure process. Be it a short sale or otherwise. But that in NO WAY makes Schweikert a vulture. Saying that he is a bad person because he made money because people lost their homes is just about as asinine as faulting a mortician for daring to make money on someone’s death. This is exactly what the Obama, Pelosi, and Mitchell are afraid of, capitalism. OH MY GOODNESS– HOW DARE HE MAKE MONEY! I say good for him. Smart buying homes from the bank after they have been foreclosed, fixing them up and renting them out for profit. I wish I had the capital to do it.

  24. Also, I hate to be a stickler for details.. But the “long list of violations” they are talking about are actually just 4 and are for the SAME property each time. Also, let me ask you this.. If your house goes up for auction haven’t you lost your home? This site says that these people were supposedly waiting for loan modification from their bank, yet their bank was the one who sent their house to auction. Please tell me that we are ALL smart enough to see through this utter BS? The judge was.

  25. John Millbury says


    If that’s the best the dems have on David is that he runs a wildly successful business then he’s got a slam-dunk of a campaign on his hands.

    The fact remains that if you don’t pay your mortgage you lose your home to the bank. The bank then sells what used to be your home and is now their home for pennies on the dollar. The banks chose to sell homes that they aquire for pennies on the dollar because they are not in the real estate business, they are in the home loan business and banks don’t like to have homes on their books.

    Simple enough?


    Then how about instead of attacking the guy that’s trying to do the right thing and instead talk to the people that chose to default on their home loans with their financial institutions.

    My God. Where is the sanity!!! Pay your mortgage and you won’t lose your house! This is exactly the type of “wah where’s my stuff” mentality that the liberal agenda pushes down your throat on a daily basis. Which brings up an interesting point…

    Where’s the money for all those people that thought Obama was going to pay their home off for them?? (Yes the people that we saw on the news all excited that Obama was going to pay their mortgage and car payment.) Oh that’s right, their “bailouts” are in a toilet somewhere in the west annex of the Treasury building; along with their hopes, dreams and their votes for “Change”.

    The only change those folks received was a change of address. Kinda sucks for those who were brainwashed by the promise of unlimited socialist handouts for life.

  26. ham sandwich says

    Schweikert has a lot of work to do, this is no slam dunk. He put together a great primary campaign, the general is different. If he doesn’t have a million bucks before early ballots go out, he’s destined for the same result as 2008. Even though he’s not going to take a “cup of coffee” from lobbyists, he better be sucking up the PAC money. And, it might help if he (and his supporters) were a little more gracious to the vanquished (and their supporters).

  27. Millbury and mandolyn,

    Trust me I would love to agree with you. But do you guys really think this was a smart profession for someone who is running for congress to go into? Yes it is a legal and fine way to make money but you do realize that the worse the economy gets the better it is for schweikerts business, the more money he makes. So when he campaigns that he wants to fix the economy its very easy to attack him as a liar because he makes money when the economy is bad not when it is good…

    So to me this is brings into question davids character and his judgment. This was just a bad decision to me.

    Also I would not use the argument that this is legal and he is just making a living. That’s what the hedge fund managers said also when they bet against the economy and therefore helped make the recession worse and profited from it going down the toilet… You don’t want schweikert sounding like some ceo at goldman sachs… That’s not exactly going to resonate with the american people…

  28. I think David is unelectable after watching this video: http://cpmazrandommusings.blogspot.com . I just can’t believe he would do something like this, especially after he announced he was running again right after he lost the general election in 2008. Not a smart move.

  29. Marcus…If being for open borders and legal immigration makes you a RINO are the founding fathers and Reagan a RINO as well. What you are saying is that the solution to our problem is regulation. That we can regulate our way out of this solution. But that is a very liberal proposition. Your putting your faith in government over markets so you are and not Jeff Flake abandoning conservative principles..

  30. Alice your a Liberal planted by the DNC…David Schweikert has NEVER BOUGHT A HOME FROM INDIVIDUALS HE ONLY BUYS THEM FROM BANKS….I don’t see how investing money into the economy is BAD FOR THE ECONOMY. Liberals are clueless on the economy…

  31. Marcus you supporting JD but your saying that Flake “abandoned the free market principles” It was JD who voted to bail out the airline industry in 2001. It was JD who voted to double the national debt and for not only one of the largest entitlement expansions but one of the largest government expansions.

    JD consistently requested pork while Jeff Flake fought against it.

  32. Steve,

    I am not sure how you do not get that people are losing their homes because the economy is bad… people have lost their jobs their 401Ks and everything else and its really easy to portray Schweikert as someone who is taking advantage of those peoples misfortunes… Its really not a hard concept to understand.

    As I said this is a business he has, its legal there is no problem with doing but someone who is running for congress should not have been doing this kind of business. How stupid was he, this opens him up to soo many easy attacks. It was just stupid.

  33. Steve,
    Your logic is 180 degrees backwards. The federal government is a government of limited powers. Regulating immigration and naturalization is one of those limited powers delegated to it by the states. The citizens have the right to demand that the feds act on those delegated powers. The feds have set up some immigration and naturalization laws yet it fails to enforce them in the slightest. If the feds have a law on the books, they should enforce it, otherwise the law is rendered a nullity.

    Granted, just because a government has a power doesn’t mean it should use it. I agree with the premise that the government that governs the least governs best. Even if you believe that government should be as small as possible, there are SOME legitimate exercizes of federal government power, namely defense, preventing restrictions on interstate commerce from killing the economy, and anything else listed in Ariticle 1, Section 8. If I remember my case law correctly, the McCulloch v. Maryland case was a prime example of two states fighting over interstate commerce and the federal government preventing two states from doing damage to the economy as a whole. That would be a case where federal intervention was more free market rather than less. Similarly, when we have no border enforcement, we have utter lawlessness. There are also national security reasons for needing a secure border. Protecting the U.S. from invasion is also a duty of the federal government. Agrue all you want for open border and anarchy, but you’re supporting crime and a weak national defense.

    I believe just about every conservative will admit that Reagan made a mistake in granting amnesty. We don’t want the same mistake made twice. If we grant amnesty to illegals, then the 20 million that are here will import their families and it will result in 100 million new socialists gaining citizenship. If that’s the case, the country will no longer have a choice between Republicans and Democrats, it will be a choice between Socialists and Communists. That would relegate this country to a third world status.

    As for JD, no one said he was perfect. Was JD more conservative than McCain? Absolutely! Anyone who argues oterwise is benighted. As for Deakin, that insane asylum escapee never had a prayer. So, who is a conservative going to support? The answer is elementary. I warned Hayworth’s staff that if he got elected and he took a hard left turn, I’d be supporting his opponent next time around.

    As for bailing out the airline industry, it was the federal governmnet that created their financial difficulties in the first place. Airlines have also been incredibly competitive. Because they were so competitive, they ran on the slimest of profit margins. When 9/11 happened and the feds shut down flights, that put an incredible strain on their financial situations. As far as I’m concerned, the federal government SHOULD have paid for the financial messes they caused. As for the banks, except for CRA loans, no one put a gun to their heads and told them that they HAD to make horrid loans or even buy interests in MBS or CDOs. While I do believe the government set up the perfect conditions for the housing bubble and its collapse, there was an incredile amount of complicty on the banks parts.

    OK, Flake has fought against pork. That’s peachy keen. But the truth of the matter is that he voted against private property rights when he voted for ENDA and cap & tax. Google Flake and Sonoran Alliance and read the comment threads that point out Flake’s departures from conservatism. If you fail to admit that he’s taken a left turn since he’s been in Congress, you’re denying reality.

    Also, why are we arguing Flake vs. Hayworth here? Flake was a House candidate opposed by a more conservative candidate. Hayworth was a Senate candidate opposing an incumbent liberal. It’s entirely logical to support Hayworth and not Flake.

  34. Marcus,

    Are you really going to keep repeating the “Jeff Flake voted for cap and tax” line without acknowledging the free-market reasoning behind it? If you say it enough times, I guess it becomes the truth.

  35. I am at a loss to understand why people of political parties would find it necessary to beat up on their own. What is a conservative? what is a liberal? If you do a circular analysis instead of linear analysis one could become the other. When elected to an office–does not a Senator or a Congressman represent their entire constituency? Do they only represent those who vote for them? How do they know who that was. I don’t believe WE THE PEOPLE is either liberal, conservative, Democrat or Republican–I believe it is actually WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WE ALL DESERVE deserve representation, no matter who is elected to office.

  36. Amattclarkson says


    While many of your comments were spot on, I’ll disagree with you on CD-6. Flake is not only conservative, he’s intelligent and savvy.

    Perhaps I could add a little to “Flake’s” view on “amnesty”. I really don’t know if this is Flake’s view, but here it goes anyway.

    When Reagan gave illegal immigrants amnesty in 1986, only 1/3 of the people eligible took advantage of the opportunity. While the unintelligent fear a new Democrat voting block of 20 million, it would be more like 4 million, and I’m sure those 4 million would be at the voting booth every chance they got voting for Obama.

    Flake’s STRIVE Act of 2007 was exactly what this country needed. My thoughts are this, the STRIVE Act:

    -increases border security substantially.

    -increases interior enforcement substantially, including expedited deportation.

    -allows for a guest worker program (the economy in 2007 needed the labor. Now, not so much)

    -changes some of the visa requirements and standards

    -allows a path to citizenship for those here illegally (what folks feel is amnesty)

    Those first 3 things sound pretty good. Any staunch conservative would want it. The 4th thing is a technicality in my mind. The final point is just a reality. If you think it is expensive to pay the medical and education bills for these illegals, think about tacking on the lawyer fees we will pay through taxes as we try to deport 12-20 million people. In the current system, I would have a pretty cushy 20+ year career as an immigration lawyer helping get these people through our due process. You might feel like they don’t have the right to due process under the law. I don’t espouse those beliefs. The Constitution is clear that all people have a right to due process, not just citizens

Leave a Reply