Keep AZ Drug Free Press Conference

Keep AZ Drug Free, which urges a no vote on Prop. 203, held a press conference with Senator Kyl, Senator McCain, Congressman Shadegg, Congressman Franks, Maricopa County Attorney Romley and Yavapai County Attorney Polk. It was archived, in three parts, on YouTube. They’re linked below.

Conservatives have A NUMBER of reasons to oppose Prop. 203. My objection has always been that it’s big government. Carolyn Short of Keep AZ Drug Free debated Andrew Myers, the campaign manager for the Marijuana Policy Project, recently on the radio on Kevin Gassman’s show. According to Ms. Short, Mr. Myers admitted Prop. 203 will result in about 800 pages of rules and regulations from the Arizona Health Department and that’s just the administrative rules. Ms. Short argues that, in fact, there will be no true regulation of the marijuana industry should the proposition pass because the Health Department can’t inspect dispensaries without advance warning, can’t inspect the marijuana at all, and can’t inspect grow operations. That leaves plenty of room for illegal operations to clean up their practices and place of business before authorities arrive. According to Ms. Short, Keep AZ Drug Free’s “beef” with that provision is that any other business regulated by Health Department, McDonalds for instance, gets no warning whatsoever and they can even inspect the hamburgers. It is perverse that advance warning must be given to dispensaries, which will be selling an illegal drug. Apparently, even certain felons can own and operate dispensaries. Ms. Short states that one of the basic problems with Prop 203 is that all of the restrictions are placed on law enforcement, business owners, landlords, schools, and Child Protective Services rather than on marijuana users. She says, “This initiative was written by an out-of-state lobby without any input whatsoever from our legislature or citizens.”

Adding to the big government objections to Prop. 203, Gov. Brewer recently held a press conference on the proposition and underscored the cost of the proposition to the state. We have budget problems enough without further burdening our economy.

The League of Women Voters is passing out a “Voter Guide” with some misleading assertions on the issues surrounding Prop. 203. The LVW guide states that the Arizona Senate passed a bill to tax marijuana and that marijuana sales would generate $1 million in the first year. What the LVW fails to tell voters is that the House failed to act on it, so the bill never became law. As it stands today, there is no legislation in place to tax marijuana sales and dispensaries specifically are exempt from income taxes.

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image

Prop. 13 Urges a NO Vote on Prop. 112

As I said in the comments on my post on my NPR interview, I understand that reasonable conservatives can disagree on Prop. 112. I consider Lynn Weaver a dear political ally and I want to ensure her views on Prop. 112 are aired as well as mine.


AZ Political Interviews with Mike Gular

On the home page of AZ Political Interviews, you can find my interview with Mike Gular. Mike is the only Republican in LD 16 and I want to encourage every Republican in LD 16 to one-shot Mike and purposefully undervote so Mike gets elected. Any Republicans fully voting and casting votes for a democrat in the house races will only ensure that democrats are elected. This was our first production in the general election. Believe it or not, the ENTIRE thing was shot on a greenscreen. Even the table was covered with a green cloth. David Sipmann of Lightray Productions is a master with digitizing! We’re thankful that he lets us use his studio. If you’re looking for decently priced studio time, contact David via his webpage.

Sonoran Alliance Tapped as Countervailing View to Liberal’s Picks on Ballot Propositions

Thanks to Rachel Alexander, I was interviewed by KJZZ (aka NPR) as a conservative counterpoint to Victor Aranow’s picks (Vic’s Picks) on the ballot propositions. Sonoran Alliance gets a mention in the piece, so, I’m sharing it here.  I wish the piece had been longer, but take a listen!

Link to NPR interview on ballot propositions

Also, Shane appeared on KJZZ today giving his views on the best run campaign, the biggest possible shocker race in Arizona, etc.  Hopefully Shane will share that piece with us soon.

And here it is featuring political journalists, consultants and pundits from across the spectrum.

Rebecca Rios Trying to Buy Election in Face of Formidable Conservative Challenger Steve Smith


Rebecca Rios’s campaign (including her union buddy’s and Planned Parenthood) have now raised approximately $100,000 in outside money to combat us with in this election! This amount is only second to the Governor in total dollars spent, so clearly the far-left liberal Democrats do not want our honest, conservative, freedom-loving, God-fearing, constitutional-defending voice in our legislature.

Now more than ever we need to RISE UP over these next 4 days and show them that the will of ‘We the People’ can overcome any amount of special interest money they throw at us.

Are we going to stand by and let them buy this election?


I urge you, fight for what you believe in. Fight for the principles that made this country great. Tell your friends, family, neighbors, and anyone you see this weekend that your voice cannot be bought and that you refuse to be silenced. If you have a Facebook or Twitter account, post every day to VOTE FOR STEVE SMITH. If you have an email list, send this message out to anyone you know.

The race is a dead-heat between Rios and I, so literally every vote will matter.

Will your voice be heard or will it be bought? The choice is yours.

God bless you and God bless America!


10 Reasons Why Jon Hulburd is Wrong for Arizona

Reposted from

10. Hulburd is out-of-touch. Hulburd supports Obamacare; Ben Quayle would fight to defund it. The Arizona Republic reported that, “Quayle is an unequivocal “no” to the Obama health-care plan, prepared to defund its key provisions. Hulburd won’t say how he would have voted on the bill had he been in Congress.” In an answer to the Republic’s candidate questionnaire, Hulburd admitted that he won’t work to repeal Obamacare: “I don’t want to waste another year and a half listening to partisan bickering over repeal.” Source:

9. Hulburd is a fraud – literally. Hulburd was sued for both business fraud and defamation of character – charges he refuses to answer questions about.

Hulburd’s Moral Compass
5 Questions To Ask Jon Hulburd?

8. Hulburd is a hypocrite. He wants to increase taxes and regulations on Arizona families and businesses to encourage a “sustainable lifestyle.” But none of Hulburd’s three sprawling mansions have solar panels. In a recent article in the Yellow Sheets said a GOP source: “I’m all for people having big houses. But I don’t see any solar panels on the roof of either of these lavish homes. Could he reduce his carbon footprint by getting a smaller place?

7. Hulburd is dishonest and evasive. It’s no wonder the Arizona Republic found that “Jon Hulburd’s positions on key issues such as health care and immigration are a mystery. Republican Ben Quayle, speaking passionately and articulately on issues, leaves no question where he stands.”

Ben Quayle offers candor, conviction
Voters’ guide: Republic endorsements for general election

6. Hulburd is a big-spender and wants to continue bankrupting America. He’s said he’ll indulge in earmarks and play this game of legalized bribery and political corruption if elected. In an Arizona Republic questionnaire Hulburd stated, “my earmark requests will be transparent.” When our country is facing mounting deficits, voters don’t need another liberal lap dog pouring billions of dollars into pork barrel spending projects. Source:

5. Hulburd sides with union bosses in Washington over workers in Arizona. Hulburd wants to take away the fundamental right to a secret ballot in workplace organizing elections. Hulburd gladly accepted $5,000 from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which is boycotting Arizona over SB 1070. He is also endorsed by AFL-CIO, a group that opposes secret ballots. In an interview with Jay Lawrence, Hulburd stated, “I do support the Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check) and that is an example, where you’re absolutely correct, where a large group of Democrats support that for the most part and Republicans are all against it.”

4. Hulburd doesn’t even know why we should vote for him. In a Freudian slip, he admitted during the KAET Channel 8 debate that he’s not sure if he’s qualified to be in Congress. “To be honest, I’m not sure I am,” he said when asked why he’s qualified. In another interview on KJZZ, Hulburd said, “yeah it’s tough enough running for this spot, then actually getting it would be in some ways even worse.”

3. Hulburd has already put his loyalty to extremist groups before what’s right for Arizona. He’s funded and supported by the same groups that called for a national boycott of Arizona after we passed our new immigration law.

FEC Report
SEIU Boycott
AFL-CIO Endorsement of Hulburd

2. Hulburd is a Pelosi puppet. He is endorsed and funded by Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi has personally donated to Hulburd’s campaign in an attempt to select Arizona’s next congressman. The Arizona Republic stated, “Hulburd, 50, even took $4,000 in campaign contributions from Pelosi which is curious when you consider that he’s loaded, thanks to marrying into the SC Johnson family.”

1. Hulburd’s first vote will be to reelect Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. “I’ll support her if she shows her priorities are what I consider my district’s priorities, my priorities,” he told the Arizona Republic. Jon Hulburd received double max contributions from Nancy Pelosi and shares the same ideologue in liberal activism, even his campaign manager Ruben Alonzo stated that he is “A Loyal Democrat.” A vote for Jon Hulburd is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and the radical left.

Nancy Pelosi Contributions
Nancy Pelosi Contributions
AZ Central: Hulburd a “Loyal Democrat”

Tell Nancy Pelosi: “No thanks.”

Vote Ben Quayle.

Open Letter to LD 7 Republicans’ House Nominee Heather Carter

Dear Ms. Carter,
You have openly aligned yourself with Expect More Arizona. EMA has come out as supporting the First Things First program and opposing Prop. 302. Republicans are supposed to stand for fiscal responsibility. A failure to adhere to that principle lead to Republican losses in Congress in 2006. Conservative Republicans believe that First Things First is wasteful and unnecessary. Many Republicans support Prop. 302 because we need the money to balance the budget. Do you support Prop. 302 or are you loyal to Expect More Arizona? If you oppose Prop. 302, exactly how do you propose to close the projected $700M + budget deficit next year? Raise our taxes? I remind you that Republicans are supposed to OPPOSE increased taxation. The voters of LD 7 deserve a candid answer. I’d like to remind you, that as our nominee, we expect you to represent REPUBLICAN values, not EMA’s values or the values of the education lobby that is dumping money into your campaign.

Marcus Kelley

AZ Political Interviews with Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidate Barry Hess

Fiscal conservatives know full well that Jan Brewer is a tax and spend liberal. She increased spending with her line item vetoes and had to call three special sessions just to undo her damage. She was the poster girl for Prop. 100. Spending levels are still as they were in 2009. She lied about fixing the state’s structural budget deficit. Revenue projections for Prop. 100 shows that the 18% tax increase isn’t bringing in the revenue Coughlin told Brewer it would. We’re looking at a budget deficit of at least $700 million next year and over $1 billion in 2012…all because Brewer and the state legislature don’t have the spine to cut the budget and unnecessary spending. She has shown on YouTube and in the CCEC debate just how stupid she really is. If it weren’t for S.B. 1070, we’d likely have a different nominee. Some polls show that Goddard, of all people, is narrowing her lead. I’d wager this wouldn’t be the case if we had a better nominee.

If, like me, you refuse to vote for Brewer because she’s demonstrated that she loves big government, there are alternatives. One alternative is Libertarian candidate Barry Hess. I recently interviewed him on AZ Political Interviews. As with David Nolan or any Libertarian, there may be enough bright-line difference in ideology that may prevent a conservative from voting for a Libertarian. See for yourself. The link to my audio interview is below.

One thing I meant to bring up with Barry, and I wish I had, but we were running short on time (and these Libertarians LOVE to talk!), is that he may be partially responsible for Arizona suffering 6 years with Napolitano as governor. Barry garnered roughly 15K votes in 2002…about twice the margin that Matt Salmon lost by. If the Libertarians had voted with the Republicans in 2002, we wouldn’t be in the budget mess that we’re in now and JaNo would not be the head of the Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps Barry will comment in this thread.

Link to audio interview with Libertarian gubernatorial candidate, Barry Hess

AZ Political Interviews with David Nolan, the Libertarian Alternative to McCain

Some conservative Republicans are incredibly unhappy with the nomination of John McCain to be our U.S. Senator. We know full well that he lied through his teeth during the campaign, posturing as a conservative, when he’s demonstrably not. Not only do we know full well that the traitor (to Republican principles) will throw off his disguise as soon as he’s elected and take a hard left, but he, or his staff, continues to wage war on conservative activists within the party while simultaneously and disingenuously trying to sell unity. I’m not buying it. Coming from John McCain, I know it’s snake oil. For that reason, he’ll get no quarter or respite from me.

If, like me, there’s no way you’re going to vote for the Democrat in Disguise that’s our Republican nominee, there’s alternatives. One of the alternatives is David Nolan, the Libertarian candidate. However, there are some bright-line differences between Libertarians and Republicans…perhaps stark enough to prevent some conservatives, especially social conservatives, from voting for a Libertarian. See for yourself: I’ve linked to my AZ Political Interviews show with Mr. Nolan. Make up your own mind. It’s an audio interview. Enjoy.

Link to David Nolan audio interview

Water Board Candidates to Consider

I got the following missive from Ron Ludders, the former head of the North Phoenix TEA Party (now marginalized by the RINO Wes Harris, a Republican Party Trojan horse), and the head of the AZ 2010 Project. Ron is right, many of us don’t pay attention to the down ballot races, but we should. We need TEA Party candidates not only in the big races, but in ALL races: school board, water board, etc. Ron sheds a lot of light on who we should consider voting for with our early ballots or at the polls on Nov. 2nd. I know I’m going to be bringing this list with me to the polls. Ron’s e-mail follows:

Most of you know how you wish to vote on high profile political offices, but far too few have much knowledge of the contest for Central Arizona Water Conservation District election.

The Central Arizona Project is managed and operated by the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD). CAWCD is a municipal corporation, also known as a public improvement district. This governmental entity was formed to repay the federal government for the reimbursable costs of construction and to operate, maintain, and manage CAP.

CAWCD employs more than 400 people who are responsible for system maintenance and operations, repayment obligations, and creating water resource management programs for Arizona. The day to day operations are managed by the General Manager and senior management team.

The General Manager reports to the 15-member CAWCD Board of Directors. Members of the Board of Directors are popularly elected from CAP’s three-county service area including Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties and serve staggered six-year terms. The Board is responsible for establishing policy and usually meets twice a month.

The Board of Directors is responsible for establishing policies for governing the Board and the functions of the CAWCD. Policies governing the operation, pricing of water, use of facilities, etc., are adopted by the Board as needed. Policies are reviewed on a regular basis to determine their continued relevance and, if deemed to be no longer relevant, may be repealed by the Board.

We have the unique opportunity this year to elect conservative, Tea Party candidates to this little known but important Board.

Please cast your vote for the following five (5) candidates and let everyone you know to support these dedicated patriots:

Bundy, TC
Johnson, Raymond
Lewis, Mark
Moulton, Cynthia
Rosado, John

Arizona Political Interviews: Ian Gilyeat for US Senate

AZ Political Interviews debuts with an interview of Independent write-in candidate for U.S. Senate, Ian Gilyeat. If you’re fed up with McCain’s liberalism, Mr. Gilyeat is an alternative to voting for McCain. You won’t see his name on the ballot, so, you’ll have to write his name in. He certainly seems to hold more values in common with the Republican platform than does Mr. McCain.

Review of the LD 15 CCEC Debate

During the opening statements, Rep. Sinema, an ultra-left-wing incumbent legislator who is termed out of the House and seeking a seat in the Senate, claimed that the Republicans are evil because they’ve cut spending and the state has lost jobs. Kyrsten has no clue what she’s talking about. First, the economy as a whole has shed jobs. It is only to be expected that Arizona, an epicenter of the government-caused distortions of the housing bubble, would be hit hard. It is not the state legislature’s fault except that it spent way too much in the Napolitano years and is now having to scale back. The housing bubble has been in the making by BOTH Republicans and Democrats at the federal level for decades. Second, Arizona has NOT cut spending. We’re still spending at 2009 levels. If anything, the legislature has kept spending in check when we SHOULD be cutting. So, what Sinema is really whining about is that we’re not spending MORE! Um, we’ve already been shown during the Obama Administration that Keynesian spending is a losing proposition. It always has been and it always will be. Whenever the government tries to meddle in an economy it does nothing but prolong recoveries, create distortions, cause downturns, etc.

The best route is to get government out of the way and that’s what Bob Thomas, the Republican candidate opposing Sinema for the Senate seat, proposed. Thomas is a military veteran and a small businessman. While Sinema whines about jobs, Thomas has created them and has never laid any employee off. He’s not a career politician like Sinema and Thomas doesn’t have the self-aggrandizing Congressional aspirations that Sinema has.

Katie Hobbs, one of the Democrat nominees for a house seat, seems to be a little clone of Kyrsten Sinema. She could have just said, “ditto” after Sinema gave her answers and she would have been as effective at the debate.

This portion of the debate gave me the biggest belly laugh. Sinema, of all people, talked about the lack of civility and decried extremists being nominated or holding office. Excuse me? Ms. Sinema started out the debate bashing Republicans. She’s the Asst. Minority Whip and she drops all else to jump in front of cameras and mics to attack Republicans. She has no compunction about lying about the facts while on the air. The prime example of this was claiming, on the radio, that S.B. 1070 would allow law enforcement officers to inquire about the status of those reporting crimes. That’s patently false and the Phoenix law Enforcement Association called Sinema out on the issue. Sinema is also a left-wing extremist, so, her cries about extremist being nominated are absolutely hypocritical. Just take a look at her scores from Goldwater and Americans for Prosperity. She scores at the bottom consistently. If she were some kind of moderate, her scores would be in the middle.

The CCEC then asked what dream legislation the candidates would like to pass. While Bob Thomas was concerned that more children are adopted, Sinema, on the other hand, wanted to rewrite the tax code to tailor the economy to her whims. The hypocrite said that the Republicans had created Swiss cheese out of the tax code, but then she admitted that she wanted to create Swiss cheese of her own by providing incentives to solar companies and other leftist causes. She wants the government to pick winners and losers in our economy. Sinema’s stupidity didn’t stop there. She said she wants to “close corporate tax loopholes,” and she wants to force those mean and evil corporations to pay “their fair share.” That’s Leftist code for wanting to raise taxes. In the middle of a recession, she wants to burden business expansion and job creation by sucking more money out of the private sector. The other stupidity to Sinema’s statement, and the stupidity in general of many Democrat pronouncements about increasing taxes on corporations and the rich, is that corporations simply pass on increased taxation to their consumers. That’s right, Sinema wants to impose new taxes on YOU. We can’t afford Sinema’s impact on our pocketbooks.

Mini-Sinema (a.k.a. Hobbs) wants to reinstate all-day kindergarten. Perhaps if kids were actually taught to read in Kindergarten, I remember reading before Kindergarten, I might actually think this is worthwhile, but Arizona kids aren’t required to read until 3rd grade. That’s appalling.

Paul Yoder had a good idea for dream legislation: tort reform. He’s absolutely right that we have a litigious society and that lawsuits make lawyers fat and rich while imposing increased costs on the rest of us. One area where this is very evident is health care. People love to sue doctors because they are considered deep-pockets. This is why malpractice insurance premiums are so high that doctors are forced out of business, the supply of doctors is artificially depressed while demand for services is high, and we have to pay more for medical services.

The candidates were then asked about Obamacare. Of course, Sinema supports it. She was one of Obama’s point men on his Health Care Task Force. Thanks to her, we’re already seeing our health care premiums go up. Thanks for taking health care LESS affordable, Kyrsten! We appreciate it! We WANTED to pay more for health care because it wasn’t expensive enough! Thanks to Sinema, we’re also seeing businesses simply drop their health care coverage. Yeah, just what we need, Ms. Sinema: less coverage and fewer benefits. The Dims all talked about forcing insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Guess what that does to the rest of us? Drives up our premiums? BINGO! We’re already seeing insurers being driven out of our markets and we’ve heard that some companies may be dropping their health care coverage all together. Mini-Sinema, taking her cues from Big Sister Sinema, gave a one word answer that she supports Obamacare.

Bob Thomas has two doctors and three nurses in his family. He understands health care well. He understands that Obamacare will blow another $1.1 BILLION hole in the budget each year for the next ten years. Guess where the state government is going to go for that cash? That’s right, they’re going to try to tax you if Sinema and Obama have their way. Again, times are tough and YOU need your money, not the government. We can’t afford Sinema. Bob Thomas also understands the constitution well enough to know that Article 1, Section 8 simply doesn’t permit the federal government to require U.S. citizens to purchase anything. Sinema, on the other hand, thinks we have a national government of general powers and whatever the feds do is OK and the Supremacy Clause covers anything the feds want to do.

The CCEC asked about stimulating job growth. The Leftists all talked about picking winners and losers, tailoring the economy to fit their whims. They’re entirely command economy types. The greatest illustration of this was Kyrsten Sinema’s crowing about tailoring the economy to fit her whims by providing incentives to solar companies to come to Arizona. Solar companies? This is Arizona. Solar companies should be FIGHTING to come here, not be BRIBED to come here. Want businesses to come here? Do the opposite of what Sinema suggests: make taxes on businesses universally low and cut regulation. Sinema also is crazy enough to think that meddling in the economy can somehow kill the cyclicality of economics. Yeah, Bill Clinton claimed he defeated the business cycle. How’s that working out for us right now? Sinema’s economic policies would either worsen our economic downturn, or prolong it.

The debate turned to immigration. Sinema said she opposed SB 1070. She openly admitted that she supports amnesty. What she didn’t tell you is that against the will of 70% of Arizonans, she urged Gov. Brewer to veto S.B. 1070. What Sinema also failed to tell you is that she thinks if you report illegals to the authorities, you should go to jail. She favors illegals over U.S. citizens. It’s disgusting that someone like Sinema can even get elected in America. Mini-Sinema trotted out the loser line that we need to rely on the feds. Um…Ms. Hobbs, they haven’t done anything to secure the border and they have no desire to either…Oh! That’s right! That’s the Left’s aim: open borders and amnesty for all! Lela Allston, the other Democrat nominee for the House in LD 15, opposes deporting illegals with American born children. The Democrats look for ANY excuse to allow illegals to stay in this country.

Bob Thomas is endorsed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Russell Pearce. He believes that we should secure the border before we deal with other immigration issues. He opposes amnesty.

Thomas, Condit and Yoder, the Republican nominees, have challenged the Democrats to a second debate on October 5th at Orangewood Church. The Democrats have given false excuses for not debating. Hobbs and Sinema claim they have class on the 5th while the ASU website proves that Sinema’s class is on Monday the 4th. Sinema is also a raging hyprcrite on the issue since she has criticized Brewer for refusing future debates with Goddard on Twitter. Hey, Sinema, if you’re going to criticize Brewer for not debating, shouldn’t you be showing up at Orangewood?

Grassroots Interviews with State Mine Inspector Joe Hart

Interview with State Mine Inspector Joe Hart

Recently, I was honored to have Joe Hart, our State Mine Inspector, as a guest on my show, Grassroots Interviews. I spent about 45 minutes talking with Joe about the mining industry in Arizona, his background and experience and the campaign. I talked with Joe about his opponent’s, Manuel Cruz’s, spurious claims that Joe doesn’t have the required experience for the office.

To me, the most interesting aspects of the interview is that Arizona has a lot of uranium it could mine in the north, yet we’ve got the Left opposing any and all attempts to capitalize on those resources. This draws a bright-line distinction between the Left and the Right to my mind: the right wants economic expansion and opportunity. The Left wants inertia, poverty and government restrictions on all aspects of human behavior.

This is a pre-production copy of my interview with State Mine Inspector Joe Hart. It’s all greenscreen. As I said, we’re still tweaking the show to come up with something that works seamlessly.

Grassroots Interviews with Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction Nominee John Huppenthal

Link to video interview with Republican nominee for State Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal

We recently started taping Grassroots Interviews again. Accept no imitations! The interview with Sen. Huppenthal is our second show. Of course, he’s the Republican nominee for Superintendent of Public Instruction. I thought education was one of my weak points, but this is an exhaustive 1.5 hour interview.

We’re still working out the kinks, so, expect changes to future interviews. If you’re running for office in a contested race and want to be interviewed, or you represent a ballot initiative, look me up on Facebook and send me a message.

Roundtable Politics on the Arizona Ballot Propositions

Link to 9/13/10 Roundtable Politics on the ballot propositions

As we promised last week, Monday night on RoundTable Politics, hosts Rachel Alexander, James Allen and I discuss the ballot propositions that we’ll be seeing on the ballot in the general election on November 2. PLEASE, do your homework. Be prepared when you go to the polls to vote on these propositions intelligently.

AFP has written a very short crib sheet on the ballot propositions.

Also, you can find more information on the ballot propositions at the Secretary of State’s website.

The website actually has some pretty balanced information about the propositions as well.

It’s important to note that the ultra-liberal Rep. Kyrsten Sinema has recently made some erroneous or stupid statements about the propositions. In reference to Prop. 106, the anti-Obamacare proposition, Sinema said the proposition’s, “value is in attempting to shape the debate. Its value is not in making substantive changes at the state level, because federal law supersedes the state constitution.” She makes a Supremacy Clause argument without doing any analysis on whether Obamacare falls under any of the federal government’s delegated powers in article 1, section 8. She just ASSUMES that anything that the feds do is OK. Hello? Kyrsten, we live under a FEDERAL government of limited powers, not a national one of general powers. That Synema, an ASU law grad, makes such a freshman mistake goes to show the depth of of her ignorance and her inability to do legal analysis. Even a 1L in his first semester of Con Law shouldn’t make this mistake…unless you’re willing to say anything to foist socialized medicine off on the masses even though they’ve said no. Remember, this bimbo carried Obama’s water on Obamacare, so, of course she’s gonna oppose Prop. 106.

Sinema also made an erroneous comment on Prop. 107, the proposition that will end race-based preferences in public employment, public education and public contracting. She claimed we don’t have affirmative action in Arizona. Ward Connerly said she was lying. She was. She wants to re-label affirmative action “equal opportunity programs.” Just like a Leftist to try to re-label something to make it have a more palatable name. Sorry, Ms. Sinema, I don’t care if you call it a Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s still giving someone a preference based on the color of their skin. That’s racism plain and simple, Ms. Sinema. Let’s not lie about it.

Sinema has also opposed Prop. 302. Sinema loves spending your money AND telling you how to live your life. First Things First (FTF) taxes tobacco users who apparently have no right to the money they earn and fritters it away, GIVING AWAY your money in the form of grants, on unnecessary government make-work programs. Uh, we’re in the middle of a budget crisis, people, and Kyrsten, like all Keynesian Democrats, believes in spending more. How is that even defensible?! Its projected that if Props. 301 & 302 do not pass, the budget shortfall will be almost $550 million. How will Sinema make up the difference? EASY! Confiscate more of your money! She knows how to spend your money better than you do! She’s been to law school!

As an aside, the House Whip, Andy Tobin, has suggested voting, “yes” on all the propositions except the marijuana proposition. Below you will find Russel Pearce’s take on the propositions and some additional research resources collected by Rachel Alexander.

Proposition 106 (YES)

This proposition would amend the Constitution to prohibit any law from compelling participation in any particular health care system. It would provide for purchase and sale of insurance in private health care systems. The proposition allows individuals to pay health care providers directly without penalty or fine. It is written to give Arizona patients the ability to opt out of federal mandates. The proposition protects individual freedoms in choosing health care.
Kyrsten Sinema wrote opposition argument

Proposition 107 (YES)

This proposition would amend the Constitution to ban programs that give preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. The ban would apply to the state, counties, cities and towns. It would also affect universities and school districts. This repeal of affirmative action policies allows for fair opportunities for all job candidates.

Proposition 109 (YES)

This proposition asks voters to establish hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife as constitutional rights for Arizona citizens. It prevents any law or rule that would restrict these rights. Arizona’s citizens greatly benefit from the outdoor activities offered by our bountiful natural resources. Proposition 109 is an important step toward protecting our ability to practice those sports and activities.

Jerry Weiers behind it, NRA supports. Protects right to hunt.
Opposition – Humane Society,,_Proposition_109_(2010)

Proposition 110 (YES)

This proposition is a major step toward solving an ongoing challenge to military operations in Arizona. It asks voters to amend state land laws to allow for the exchange of public land. This proposition is vital to Arizona’s military bases that have been threatened by encroaching development. Approval will enable the military to work with the State Land Department to protect both state land and the military operations that bring billions of dollars in economic benefit to the state each year.

Chamber of Commerce & Sierra Club endorsed, sponsored by John Nelson
Protects military bases,_Proposition_110_(2010) – arguments against include that land swaps often favor a private developer over the public

As this State has experienced a change in executive leadership mid-term throughout the last two decades, it has become more apparent that an office of succession is a consideration that Arizona voters should decide. If approved, this proposition would change the title of Secretary of State to that of Lieutenant Governor in 2015. The transition of leadership would be more transparent to the public, and voters would be certain that the candidates they are electing are indeed assuming the possibility of holding a higher office should extraordinary, albeit more frequent, circumstances occur.

Deb Gullett is behind this, Bill Montgomery thinks it’s a bad idea because it creates more bureaucracy
Chamber of Commerce endorsed
After the primary, the governor would run as one slate ticket with the Lt. Governor,_Proposition_111_(2010)

Proposition 112 (YES)

Over the past several election cycles, a number of citizen initiatives have been disqualified from the ballot after checks of petition signatures uncovered fraudulent signatures and highlighted the difficulty that strict time constraints placed on the verification process. This proposition increases the time for filing an initiative petition to no less than six months preceding the date of the election for the proposed measures.

Chamber of Commerce endorsed,_Proposition_112_(2010)

Proposition 113 (YES)

This proposition would amend the constitution to include a right to vote by secret ballot for employee representation. The right to vote by secret ballot is a fundamental right. If unions attempted to institute a “card check” instead of the secret ballot, workers would face intimidation to support union organization.

Clint Bolick, Chamber of Commerce support,_Proposition_108_(2010)


This proposition would allow patients with specific medical conditions to obtain marijuana with a physician’s certification. The patients would be allowed to use marijuana to treat the identified medical condition or related symptoms. The proposition would require the Department of Health Services to regulate the process. Medical marijuana is not part of any plan to manage pain, and the FDA doesn’t recognize smoking marijuana as a treatment for any medical condition. The proposition also includes severe or chronic pain as a reason to prescribe, which invites the potential to abuse.


The Legislature recognized the need for ballot referral reform in light of the budget crisis. Simply put, the state can no longer spend the money for all the programs it has funded in the past. Proposition 301 would move money from the outstanding balance in the Land Conservation Fund to help balance the state budget for FY 2011. The balance is estimated at $123 million, and if the proposition does not pass, it would open up a hole that size in the current budget.

Goldwater Institute supports –,_Proposition_301_(2010)


Voters also have an opportunity to repeal the Early Childhood Development and Health Board (First Things First) and redirect the funding to health and human services to children. Since approved by the voters, the tobacco revenues accrued for First Things First have amassed (over $300 million unexpended) and a bureaucracy has been created. The mission of the program is to refer citizens to other state funded programs that are imperiled by the lack of funding (such as child care wait lists and subsidies, Kids Care, early childhood education programs within the existing school systems, immunization and other programs). Whether one is in agreement with the programs that may benefit from First Things First dollars, the state is obligated to fund them without revenues. The enacted FY 11 budget assumes the passage of Proposition 302 to close the budget gap by $345,000,000 in revenues. Should this measure fail at the ballot, deeper children’s program cuts are inevitable.

Chamber of Commerce and Goldwater Institute supports –
AZ Tax Research Association
Opponents include Kyrsten Sinema,_Proposition_302_(2010)

Dem Outrage Over Green Candidates Wholly Hypocritical

The story may be considered already stale, and I believe Mike Broomhead covered most of what I’m about to say days ago, but the story remains in the news and I’m compelled to speak out. The Democrats have been crying like little girls for days now about Steve May recruiting Green candidates to siphon Democrat votes in the general. In fact, in their usual hyperbolic, forced parlance, they’re calling it fraud. My response: …so what, Democrats? You do it to Republicans all the time. This is a valid tactic and it’s been used for a very long time. Apparently, a judge just affirmed that there’s nothing illegal about their candidacies.

The Democrats are just crying because their tactics are being used against them. At least in terms of putting candidates on the ballot, we Republicans, should know their tactics well and we should use the same tactics against them mercilessly. While the Democrats are whining and crying to the courts, they use the same kind of tactics against Republicans all the time. The difference? We don’t engage in the beta male behavior of crying about it. We simply out the Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) and Democrats in Disguise (DIDs) and try to win elections. We don’t go running off crying to the courts, that’s for Democrats. We Republicans believe in achieving our goals through the legislative process.

Arizona has a set of laws that governs who can and can’t get on the ballot. I believe they’re all in Title 16. These Green candidates at issue here jumped through all the legal hoops to get on the ballot, but the Democrats don’t like the way the law worked, so they cry about it. They want an exception to the law to benefit them, and them alone. They believe they shouldn’t have to operate under the same laws as the rest of us, that they’re special and everything should be their way. They believe the rules they’re crying about should only work in their favor. Remember what Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, “some animals are more equal than others”?

Exactly how do the Democrats use the laws against the Republicans? Two ways. First, and this may not be a conscious, concerted effort, but Democrats that want to hold office realize that they live in a Republican district and then they change their voter registration and run as a Republican. If they’re smart, they’ll lie to the electorate about being a conservative just to get elected. There are plenty of examples in Arizona politics of this. Life-long Democrat Tom Horne changed his party registration before he ran for the state House years ago. Dean Martin flogged him for it. Horne, the stereotypical RINO, has since done everything in his power to SOUND like he’s a conservative since but his record shows otherwise. Unfortunately, if the old man can win the AG’s spot, he’ll be third in line to the Governor’s office. We’ve done it to ourselves to let such a moderate Republican get so high in the party, but it’s nothing new. Jane Hull was a moderate Governor too and Jan Brewer has less than a conservative record now after hiking your taxes and increasing spending with her line item vetoes. Most recently Democrat In Disguise Heather Carter won a Republican nomination to the House in LD 7.

It is possible to have a Republican register as a Democrat and run in a Democrat stronghold district, but few Republicans can stomach lying to the electorate like that whereas Democrats have no compunction about it. Also, Republicans tend to brand anyone registered as a Democrat as a liberal. It would take an immense amount of self-sacrifice to run as a Democrat, so, it’s not often done.

Second, in addition to the tactic of running a Democrat as a Republican, the Democrats often run one Democrat House candidate in a solidly Republican district. How does this work? Easy. The Democrats “one-shot” their candidate. For those who don’t understand, to one-shot, a Democrat walks into a voting booth, and, for example, once they get to the state House races, they intentionally undervote, casting only one vote for the Democrat candidate and they fail to cast their second vote in order to deny the Republicans additional votes. You see, if Democrats were to fully vote, then they would be padding the vote totals for the Republicans and ensuring their candidate would lose. The hope is that, by one-shotting, the Republican candidates will not get as many votes as the Democrat candidate and the Democrat wins a seat. Democrats can win when the voter registration is close or the Republicans put up a bad candidate or when voters also undervote because they don’t like a Republican candidate. It’s also possible for independents and PNDs to vote for the Democrat candidate to put them over the top as well. Also, if it’s a bad year for Republicans, because moderates have been in power betraying Republican principles and conservatives have determined to discipline the party, a Democrat also has a shot at winning. It’s one of the many reasons why I thrash the moderates on a daily basis, because I want Republicans to win elections and stay in the majority for the long term. There’s a couple of split districts like this: LD 5 (it has a very slim 2% Republican registration advantage), LD 11 (has a 12% Republican registration advantage, but it has a history of moderate leadership), LD 20 (has about a 10% registration advantage), and LD 26 (has about an 8% registration advantage).

Republicans actually do the exact same thing to the Democrats…and we should do it to them EVERY TIME, without fail. LD 23 would be a district with a Democrat registration advantage, but we have one Republican Representative in that District. We’re also sticking it to the Democrats in LD 16 with Mike Gular. Again, I’d like to remind all LD 16 voters to one-shot Mike. Please ONLY vote for Mike and NEVER vote for a Democrat in the House races. If Republicans cast ANY votes for a Democrat in the LD 16 House races, you’re assuring you have NO representation in the House for another 2 years. LDs 24 and 25 also have Democrat registration advantages and one Republican office-holder.

Also, while I’m no proponent of Clean Election, I want the system abolished, as long as the sham is in place, we Republicans should be running a full slate of candidates in all 30 districts, ESPECIALLY the Democrat strongholds. Why? To fritter away taxpayer money? No, to make the fat, lazy Democrats EARN their seats in the legislature and possibly take the seats away from them.

Another tactic that the Democrats love to use is non-partisan races. In Republican strongholds, we Republicans are dumb enough to agree to non-partisan contests so the Democrats can pull the wool over the electorate’s eyes and sneak Democrats into office. How else would we get horrid mayoral and city council office holders. Phil Gordon is a horrid mayor. Had we had partisan elections, Randy Pullen would have been our mayor. Randy did his best to make it clear that he was a Republican candidate. I voted for Pullen and despite my differences with him, I rue that he’s not mayor. In Democrat strongholds, like Tucson, the Dems want partisan elections so they can ensure that their majorities can control things. If I had my way, ALL elections would be partisan, even in the Democrat strongholds.

What’s also hypocritical about the Democrats’ tears, with all their high-minded talk about “democracy,” is that they have done their best to knock as many candidates off the ballot as they can this year. One would think that if they believed in democracy that they’d want as many candidates on the ballot as possible. Just remember, Democrats are hypocrites and liars. They’ll tell you one thing and do another. Same with moderate and liberal Republicans. You should also remember that we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Decisions aren’t made by the masses (except for ballot propositions and who our representatives are), they’re made by our chosen representatives. Our Founders hated and feared democracy as mob rule. Initially, we had a limited franchise because our Founders hated democracy. They also instituted a bi-cameral legislature to put further brakes on the passions of the mob. Same with state legislative election of U.S. Senators, six year terms for Senators and the Electoral College.

To sum up, the Democrats’ crying is hypocritical. They just want things their way and never you mind that they also employ deceptive practices during election cycles.

Roundtable Politics from Monday, September 6

Last night on Roundtable Politics, hosts Rachel Alexander, James Allen and I discuss whether or not the Republican Party has EARNED party loyalty from conservatives in the General Election. We also touch on ballot Proposition 107 and Jan Brewer’s performance in the Clean Elections gubernatorial debate. Even Fox News is picking up on how atrocious her performance was. Fox is reporting that Coughlin and company now won’t let her debate because they’re afraid she’ll blow what should be an easy election.

Next Monday, we may well discuss the other ballot propositions on RTP.

link to last night’s Roundtable Politics