Guest Opinion


Note to : Senator McCain (R) and Senator Kyl (R) and ALL AZ Congressional Representatives (R) and (D) to Congress:

“Arizona Governor Jan Brewer angrily demanded yesterday that the White House withdraw their report to the UN Human Rights Council that singled out Arizona’s law as a cause for concern about the American track record on human rights. Calling such a reference “downright offensive” in her letter to Hillary Clinton, Brewer also called the entire report “internationalism run amuck.”

 (Ed Morrissey: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/28/brewer-blasts-obama-over-submission-to-un-specifying-az-immigration-law/)

Every single citizen of Arizona has been smeared as racist, human rights abusers to the United Nations HRC by our current President, Barack Obama (D), through his appointee, Hillary Clinton (D) as Secretary of State. One cannot recall a single instance when a sovereign government has EVER issued a condemnation of its OWN people to the United Nations. The Obama Administration initiated the international smear by instructing the State Department through Hillary Clinton and her deputy to introduce Arizona as a human rights abuser to the Chinese a few months ago, “Brought it up early and often.” Not a peep from our elected representatives then, now Obama jacks this cynical campaign against Arizona to the United Nations.

This also follows a recent obnoxious scene when Nancy Pelosi (D) as Speaker of the House provided Congress as the venue for a pulpit and a tacit stamp of approval for Mexico’s President to spew falsehoods and outrageous complaints against lawful Arizona state governing , and Arizona’s people. Before the entire nation, the Democratic Party literally applauded the whines of a foreigner against American citizens. Before the entire nation, Arizona’s elected representatives have been mute.

Arizona apparently has no representation in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. The silence is inexcusable. Our elected representatives should be in 100% in unison regardless of political party in public, and in unrelenting condemnation, and in demanding accountability on the Senate and House floors to protest the complete abuse of our national governance against the state of Arizona and the American citizens of Arizona they were elected to represent.

It goes far beyond Republican or Democrat, to the national integrity of our country, yet the elected officials Arizona has sent to represent this state in Congress are silent. There is no Congressional mobilization of the Constitutional checks and balances to control this executive branch abuse, thanks to the abandonment by our legislators of their sworn duties to the PEOPLE.

Governor Jan Brewer is a Republican. Where are her fellow Republican elected officials standing with her as she rightly objects to this unheard of act of the government in Washington DC going to an international body to pressure a U.S. State to accept a radical, corrosive and extra-legal domestic political agenda? Senator McCain, where are you? Senator Kyl where are you? Are you (R) busy defending the PEOPLE or (R)INO busy enabling the Democrats by co-drafting amnesty for favored status of foreigners who’ve broken our laws, over lawful citizens?

This is not only a national disgrace, a complete travesty, but a terrible abrogation of national sovereignty. We sure don’t hear any murmurs of concern about this coordinated Democratic Party disgusting action against a fellow Republican elected official who currently represents this state.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has been considered a travesty of its own, usually stocked with the world’s worst human rights offenders on the planet: Cuba, with journalists starving to death in squalid Cuban jails, China which harvests organs from prisoners, Saudi Arabia which beheads religious apostates, amputates people’s hands for crimes like theft, and shelters slavery within its kingdom’s borders, all of which have prisoners who would literally give their right arms to be taken care of by Sheriff Joe Arpaio instead.   

It’s been a bad joke and just got worse. The committee members know very well Arizona is paradise compared to what they and scores of other countries routinely dish out to their citizens. Not a single other country would tolerate for a nanosecond ANY illegals entering their own nations, but many are happy to play along with the Obama Administration’s little political maneuvering stunt and condemn Arizona anyway, so this takes bad theatre down to a lower level of basement decrepitude.

What happens next?  Will Arizonans be  subject to arrest while innocently traveling abroad?  Not likely?  How preposterous is the fact that the “”problem of Arizona” is now on the UNHRC’s agenda?  It’s ridiculous, but there it is, thanks to Obama. By forcing this issue into the United Nations, all sorts of consequences are now possible.  Will the ultimate cynical ploy be realized by a gloating and gleeful White House?  Governor Jan Brewer indicted as Sudan’s Bashir was for “crimes against humanity”?  President  Bashir presided over Darfur atrocities, Brewer presides over …  SB1070, which the Obama Administration evidently is arguing is on some sort of bizarro par with Bashir’s Darfur policies.  Our POTUS is destroying the protections ALL American citizens are entitled to as stated in the Constitution.  Yet, our representatives are AWOL.  Instead of standing up for us all, they are hiding from us.

By Sylvia Allen

In Response to Bill Konopnicki’s Last-Minute Publicity Stunt

It is quite clear that the stress of masquerading as a conservative has finally taken both a physical and mental toll on Bill Konopnicki. Our first indications were his accusations that our campaign consultant had been kicked out of his country of birth (the USA) where a warrant was out for his arrest. Or that he had been banned from Colorado (where apparently Bill thinks the medieval practice of banishment is still practiced.)

Today, Konopnicki’s Hail-Mary pass was a bogus complaint alleging campaign finance violations that are not supported by any facts, and that was presented to the world in the form of a press release, the hallmark of any serious legal complaint, no doubt.

Those of us who have watched Bill Konopnicki craft debt-laden state budgets are not surprised to see him having trouble with budget numbers and mathematics. He also ignores a number of other facts, including the fact that he is speaking about a number of expenditures that occurred after the last finance report and yet is complaining that they have not yet been reported. He is also making assumptions on quantities and timing that are nothing more than guesses.

Even stranger was his complaint that any mis-filing was “depriving candidate Bill Konopnicki of a fair election process. There will not be a meaningful opportunity for Mr. Konopnicki to timely respond in kind to these flyers.” Of course, thanks to his Maricopa County special interest buddies, Mr. Konopnicki will spend between two and three times as much as Senator Allen will, and he has produced a substantially greater number of flyers, as well as ads, billboards, radio ads, television ads, etc. For him to complain that he has been denied the opportunity to communicate with the voters in any way is a complete joke.

No, what Bill Konopnicki is doing here is trying to get some desperately needed publicity. Perhaps his polling is predicting an outcome that is prompting this desperate behavior?

Whatever the case, we are going to continue to campaign hard until the final bell rings, undistracted by Mr. Konopnicki’s and his legal team’s bizarre complaint.

In the meantime, we would recommend that Mr. Konopnicki respond to the campaign finance complaint that was filed inquiring where the expenditures were on his own reports for the radio ads, billboards and other expenses that have been running since March.

Here’s the latest video by Right Wing HouseWife!

YouTube Preview Image

I do thank McCain for bringing Sarah Palin out of Alaska and into the national spotlight, even if he had no idea what he had with her and obviously regretted it once the crowds went wild. It wasn’t supposed to be about Governor Sarah Palin, but about him and his fine family guy, Barack Obama. So, it would irritate McCain no end to be thanked for being the guy who made Palin a household name, more known than his own.

McCain’s headed for bitter, self-absorbed obscurity, no matter whether he wins Tuesday or not, but Palin’s going on to far greater things than McCain ever achieved or can achieve.  McCain’s debate performance exposed that his veneer of civility  is thinning,  not sufficient anymore to hide the corrosive animosity he carries.  Unless that changes, any future contributions will be negative, not positive, and increasingly out of step with the state and the nation. Working on auto-pilot, he appears to expect his campaign machine to campaign for him, and if he wins Tuesday, he will be facing what will effectively be his THIRD campaign in two years, after a grueling national race for POTUS, then a spenda-palooza primary, then facing a Democrat. 

We have to gamble that McCain won’t pompously drop his campaign against the Democrat to rush to Washington to vote for  Democrat Party legislation.  A feeble, self-deluding  hope backing a bad bet,  since he did exactly that to us all, already;  the Democrat won and the lion’s share of TARP money extracted out of struggling American taxpayers vanished overseas to bail out foreign companies.

JD Hayworth has campaigned with dignity, and perserverence; by Tuesday, he will have done what he could have done, the rest is out of his hands. McCain’s own stifling and hobbling McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform to Favor the Incumbent,  and his use of a war chest including Republican money raised expressly for defeating Democrat Obama, but now employed against Republican Hayworth is a putrid political reality that may or may not be overcome in this primary time frame.  We’ll see.

If McCain loses, Cindy might need that duct tape she favors to cover his mouth. Maybe stuff her ears with it. We’ve ALL been warned for years at how well McCain takes set-backs.   If Hayworth loses, we won’t  have to plug our ears and hustle the children out of earshot.  And Hayworth is plenty young enough to try AGAIN,  unlike McCain.

By Jane 001

American people don’t want more stimulus from Capital Hill. We can’t be more clear about our disdain for stimulus bills and our desire for government spending to go on lock-down. Nevertheless, the U.S. Senate advanced another $26 billion jobs stimulus bill on Aug 5. GOP Senators had been successful with a filibuster until Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine did their usual dance across the aisle.

The U.S. Senate is advancing spending bills with the speed of a runaway freight train. Although, there’s at least one seasoned GOP veteran in that body who could rally perennial defectors like Snowe and Collins. Some say he’s so effective, no other living Arizonan can be trusted with the job. Despite being tagged as a political tactician, John McCain’s lack of influence with his colleagues is glaring. We can’t count the number of times the Snowe-Collins script has been played. A true tactician would have solved this riddle by now and performed the statesman-like magic in his possession. But there is no magic; and neither are there results.

Maybe John McCain does his best work with Democrats. It’s fine if he enjoys crossing the aisle. But what good is it for someone to cross the aisle when he can’t go across the hall and secure a couple of votes!

Should SB1070 Be Secondary to… SB1108?

Crime Control  vs. The Bill of Rights

by Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce

The entire world, driven by news-media reports, has become fixated on the illegal-immigrant invasion Arizona has suffered under for years.

The invasion had previously been ignored, a news-media black hole from which little real information escaped.

The catalyst for the attention is my bill SB1070, which empowers our law enforcement agencies to deal with the invasion. We passed the bill because along with the feds the state and local governments are aiding and abetting the invaders, instead of stopping them and defending the nation against a flood of biblical proportions.

In its frenzy the media missed huge Bill of Rights restoration in Arizona. SB1070 is a criminal statute, enacted to treat symptoms of the very harmful crime of sneaking into a nation without permission, involved in serious criminal activity, billions in cost, jobs taken from Americans, and leaching off the nation’s success and abundance.  I do not want to undermine the importance of SB1070 and the national debate way over due on this issue.

A different law, SB1108, for which I am as responsible as I am for SB1070, is a critical important act. SB1108 is no simple crime-control law. It repeals outrageous infringements to the Bill of Rights, reinstating wholesome fullness to the right to keep and bear arms.

The media however, driven by a nearly fanatical racist miasma, has blindly focused on the immigration-crime law, finding racism where none exists — at the expense of even seeing the strengthened Bill of Rights.
 
The media inaccurately conflated the racial (not racist) nature of our invasion, with the powers in the immigration bill, which are pure law enforcement. That’s because the invaders are overwhelmingly Hispanic — though the Border Patrol says 20% are OTMs — “Other Than Mexicans.”

Civil rights were reborn here on the same day the anti-invasion bill took effect, but the media ignored that. While they cried racism, “Constitutional Carry” restored fundamental civil rights to anyone on the planet who enters the state of Arizona legally. This bill extends rights to all people.

The God-given right to protect your family, your property and yourself from immediate physical harm has been accepted since the dawn of civilization. It was ensconced in the Constitution when the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights. There was little controversy over this well understood, deeply rooted basic human right until recently, when forces of darkness began attacking many of the truths we hold to be self evident.

Arizona now has the most robust protection for the right to keep arms, and the right to bear arms, anywhere on Earth. How could media pundits miss that?

Are they so blinded by imagined racism they find where there is none, that they can’t see what was put in front of them at a packed news conference the day before either law took effect?

In times just recently past, enactment of a law that frees every decent adult in the world to carry a gun with no prior permission would have led to a national uproar.

Could it be that a law crafted to prevent illegal activity is more important than the historic renewal of a cherished human right?

Maybe the media is just tired of crying wolf? They screamed about imminent blood-in-the-streets when Arizona’s gun-permit law passed in 1994, but nothing ever happened (and they never apologized).
They convulsed recently about anticipated wild-west mayhem when a 30-year-old ban on gun possession was repealed for National Parks, but nothing happened (and they showed no remorse for the fear mongering).

When Arizona’s restaurant gun ban was lifted a year-and-a-half ago, we heard insane screeching about impending homicidal frenzy from “shotguns in nightclubs,” but it turned out that breakfast at Denny’s or lunch at Applebee’s is really a mild-mannered affair. No correction has been issued or is expected.

So why should the media pay any attention to a law that merely restores the Second Amendment, not just for citizens but for any law-abiding adult who legally visits?

Who really cares that amassed infringements on 10% of the Bill of Rights have finally been overturned, without bloodshed?

Why even bother covering a law that one other state, Alaska, passed in 2003?

Does it really matter that states all over the union are now seeking Constitutional Carry for themselves?

Could people care less if a place like Arizona frees its women to put handguns in their handbags, go about their business, and return home without fear of arrest? How could feminists or NOW complain about that?

Would it bore people if you told them Sen. Pearce’s bill and its chief advocates, the Arizona Citizens Defense League (azcdl.org) worked for the past five years to make statute conform to the state’s Constitution?
No one wants to hear that all these crazies are carrying guns and no one is getting shot. How could that possibly be newsworthy?

And perhaps most of all, people don’t want to hear that government’s exit from the enforced-training game is a business-stimulus plan.

Private enterprise within the state has launched the TrainMeAZ.com campaign to promote a culture of marksmanship and gun safety to every person in the state. This is Arizona — learn to shoot straight. Marksmanship matters. Teach your children well. Why would the news media ever cover that, even if it is going up on billboards statewide?

The Constitutional Carry law and TrainMeAZ campaign have ignited a firestorm of entrepreneurism, and rekindled a burning desire to restore the nation of marksmen our Founder envisioned. An entire state trained to arms, what a concept.

I personally urge the nation to look at what we’ve done with Defensive Display, Castle Doctrine inside and outside the home, Burden of Proof, Specious Civil Suit immunity, Firearms Freedom Act, Preemption and more. Make your legislatures emulate the freedom of spirit that thrives in the Grand Canyon State. Come visit and feel what it’s like to be a free adult instead of a ward of the state. You may not want to leave. And if you do leave, you’ll take the spirit for freedom back home with you.

Russell Pearce is the Republican State Senator from Arizona legislative district 18 and author of the anti-illegal immigration bill SB1070, and the Constitutional Carry law for firearms, SB1108, neither of which are controversial in point of fact.

H.R.5741 — Universal National Service Act (Introduced in House – IH)
HR 5741 IH
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5741
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 15, 2010

Read the bill in its entirety: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.5741:

A brief background: This bill has been introduced twice before. Rep. Charles Rangel (D) introduced it in 2003, expanding the draft to females, with the age parameters set at 18-26. With a Republican Congressional majority, it went nowhere; actually, not nowhere, but back in Rangel’s desk drawer. Rangel, with newly minted Senator Hillary Clinton singing its praises, and Democrats back in control, pulled it out in February 2006, as HR 4752, with a greatly expanded age range of 18-42, to encompass far more of the adult American population. But, the Democratic majority wasn’t quite major enough to pass it. It went back into Rangel’s top desk drawer.

Rangel evidently sees a new opportunity. He reintroduced it a few days ago, as the Universal National Service Act: HR 5741.

With Obama urging a “National Civilian Corps” and the Democrats firmly in control of both the Congress and Senate, and the leadership of Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who thinks nothing of hiding the contents of the power-grabbing bills she promotes from the public, “We’ll have to pass it before you find out what’s in it,” Rangel’s HR 5741, in this session, has the best chance ever of being passed and signed into law. It should have had a wooden stake driven through it and burned.

Behind the façade of “National Service,” which sounds okay enough and has a sly suggestive appeal of getting idle youth off the streets, and ‘push-up’ them into a discipline their parents were too lazy to instill in their progeny, and seems to ignore that the National Guard is already tasked with “the furtherance of the national defense and homeland security,” the Democrats are proposing a sweeping and devastating crushing of our individual liberties, of our fundamental unalienable rights as stated in the Constitution of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The military does NOT want a draft. They are on record as opposing one. It’s doing just fine with an all-volunteer military. They like the self-selecting aspect of it; that those who don’t want to be in the military don’t apply, saving the military endless headaches from dealing with sullen and recalcitrant inductees. The military can achieve more with a smaller, but better trained and more motivated force comprised of men and women who have a natural inclination for military work. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

But this isn’t about making the military better, but WORSE. Rangel’s motivation was to make military service onerous and unwanted, to discourage American military activity.

   “Ironically, in previous discussion leading up the bill, Rangel’s initiative to restore the draft was described as “an anti-war tactic” … “Rangel opposes war with Iraq and seeks to make the point that many soldiers are volunteers from low-income and minority families. Political leaders, his reasoning goes, would think twice about sending into war the sons and daughters of a more complete cross-section of America.” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2535

It’s a toxic inspiration for a truly vile piece of legislation, based on what has been proven to be no more than a phony urban, class warfare legend. The majority of our current all-volunteer military is not derived from poor and minority volunteers, but from the “white,” middle and upper middle class. The bill proposes seizing control of the lives of all males and females 18-42 for one of three demands of government:

1) National Service: ‘uniformed services’ or ‘civilian service’
2) Universal male-female Draft in time of war
3) For other purposes

    “The bill applies to both US citizens and non-citizens, to men and women. There does not appear to be a provision which would exempt women who are pregnant and/or caring for infants/children in a young age… The bill also supports Big Brother. Those who are not sent overseas to the war theater would… be inducted into the civilian homeland defense corps and other civilian duties, including the Citizens Corps, the “Neighborhood Watch Teams” and the “Volunteer Police Service …” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2535

Evidently, these two categories are not quite enough, so the third provision, “for other purposes” is the lock on the shackles. This trifecta would establish a modern form of slavery, engineered by the Democratic Party, the same political party that was responsible for plunging the nation into civil war rather than give up slave labor, and jacks the executive branch power of Commander-in-Chief of the military, to Totalitarian in Chief of all the people. We can expect that Obama, being human, would be warm to this, in a self-promoting way, since he would be the first POTUS in American history to be able to exploit absolute power.

The consequences will be devastating. If anyone between the ages of 18-42, the most productive segment of our society can be yanked out of their professions, training or schooling to perform busywork for the government, then it’s the death of private enterprise in America. The societal hardships will be enormous. The government will be able to redirect work to favored partisan priorities and away from out of favor production and services. The burden on families would be worse than for singles as BOTH parents could be ordered away from their children, punishing marriage and child-raising with uncertainty, disruption and enormous emotional stress, businesses will be in a constant state of artificial disarray, dealing with unexpected employee absences, training staff only to suddenly lose them.

This “Universal National Service Act” isn’t about warfare needs, but about government totally controlling people; no one will be able to predict when they would be called up. And from what money tree is financing supposed to come for this? Taking people away from producing work to forcibly perform non-producing activities destroys personal and national wealth-creation.  People working long hours will suddenly have “volunteering” work or as it is becoming known as: “volun-TOLD,” to add to their work load.

Rangel’s perverse vision for this bill is that it is to undermine our fighting capabilities. With that as its fundamental premise, it will be easy to engineer infuriating and shocking outcomes for maximum public outrage – by cynically sending women to war, while men are sent to clean toilets at public schools.

The decision to assign a draftee to one of the three named services will be made by politically-appointed draft boards, and there the potential for great mischief will manifest itself. Political enemies get sent to military service, or harassed with random forms of “deployment,” political favorites to picking flowers in national parks, or to nice urban offices to drink coffee and roam the hallways or snoop on neighbors, reporting them for “un-patriotic” activities, a system developed by the Communists to control every single person in the society.

The undefined, “any other purpose” leaves citizens totally at the mercy of the whims of political hacks. Bribery will be rampant and blatant as people bargain the price out of hardship. Prison will be the punishment for “National-Service-Dodging.”

Where is the media? They are AWOL. Perhaps they are confident their political connections will allow them exemptions that lesser mortals will not get. Because of their failure to alert the public, most Americans are not aware that this bill even exists, much less that it’s been re-introduced in the House.

It’s hard to conceive of the duplicity of the many minds, all Democrats, which produced and support such a monstrosity, but the PEOPLE of the United States will be made chattel in their own country if this Universal National Slavery Act is allowed to pass.

Contact ALL your elected representatives to oppose this hideous bill, HR 5741, and to make sure it never is seen in any form, again, ever. Do not vote for ANY politician who does not in word and deed reject completely not just this piece of abusive legislation, but also this abusive legislative mindset.

Spread the word, show people the bill. Demand the Democratic Party explain this travesty, it is being sheltered and promoted by Democrats. Our elected officials should be publicizing this outrage to the American People to expose the despicable quality and devious goals of those in the Democratic Party who are misusing their majorities to establish not governance of the People, but lordship over us.

Start in November 2010. If a candidate has DEMOCRAT by his or her name, consider what the Democrats have in store for all of us if they retain any semblance of a majority and consider the corrosive enabling effects of any candidate (I) or (R) who colludes in any way with these exploitative and totalitarian aspirations.

WHERE are our sitting US Senators, McCain and Kyl, all our Arizona Congressmen and Congresswomen, publically and vociferously defending Arizona and Arizona local law enforcement on the floor of the Senate and the House and through every and all media outlet, against the Obama Administration’s cynical and toxic approval of coordinated campaigns to dishonestly smear our police, sheriffs and deputies as racists, agitating street violence by bussing in professional protestors with radios and scanners to harass, interfere with, abuse and exhaust local law enforcement officers?  WHERE are they denouncing all Unconstitutional actions to destroy domestic tranquillity by divisive and damaging boycotts against Arizona and Arizonans?

AZ law enforcement is under siege and our two senators are AWOL; AWOL for Federal enforcement actions, border security and AWOL for addressing local AZ state hardships. Aren’t they sent to Washington by the citizens of this state to advocate and use all their political skills to insure that Federal border responsibilities are met for the protection of Arizonans, and by that, all Americans? Pick a random agitator from one of “32 unions” advertised as rolling into Arizona this past week from out of state, and ask what party they vote for: DEMOCRAT. Pick a random boycotting-voting LA City Council member, what party are they of: DEMOCRAT. A California city mayor decreeing a rupture of city business with Arizona: DEMOCRAT. A random pick of a boycotting non-governmental organization voter from say, La Raza: DEMOCRAT. An Arizona-elected Congressman encouraging a boycott of Arizonans for wanting to enforce the laws of our nation: DEMOCRAT. An Arizona city mayor disparaging the men and women in the police and sheriff’s departments who keep him safe: DEMOCRAT.  Given that partisan behavior, how much credibile action to preserve our domestic tranquillity can we expect from ANY of our representatives who belong to the Democratic Party?   NO respresentative, Democrat or Republican should have anything to do with such corrosive tactics, but evidently the Democrats perceive too much politican gain to listen to reason or to refresh their oaths to preserve the Constitution. 

It’s more than a disgrace that this is falling along partisan political lines when the threat to our domestic tranquility – our local, state and national security – will negatively affect everyone, no matter the political party or ideology. With the Democratic Party loyalties of the overwhelming majority of the agitators, on the streets, in the courts, in the media, and in Congress, and nothing but divisive rhetoric coupled with willingness to act on boycotting from the Democratic Party, we look to the Republican Party to bring this back to reason, rationality and self-preservation of the nation.

So, where are the REPUBLICANS who are DENOUNCING this injustice? Arizona sent not one, but TWO Republican Senators to Washington. Where are the photos of them standing shoulder to shoulder with Governor Jan Brewer, or with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, or the deputies of Maricopa county, or the police of Nogales and Tucson, or relentlessly on national media insisting that freedom to speak one’s mind politically, and peaceful marches is one thing, but blocking traffic, making physical obstructions so that citizens can’t get to work on time, defacing and damaging public and private property, engineering chaos so that businesses can’t reach their customers, anarchist mobbing and banging at the county jail gates as part of a plan to harass and overwhelm policing,” is quite another thing. So is inexcusable silence from ALL our elected officials as Arizonans are smeared nationally by the Democrats in the administration, the Congress, the national media, and internationally by our State Department, hypocritically employing what they claim they are against,  massive group stereotyping and profiling, as “racists.”

Hispanic” is a precise term in linguistics, but a very mushy and undefined one in international terms, encompassing people from over a dozen countries – on three continents, with many accents, dialects and cultural differences. Does this “Hispanic” favoritism extend to the Spanish of Spain or the West Africans of the Spanish Western Sahara or is it really code for a specific country, favored even over its own “Hispanic” neighbors? With “brown people” invoked even more frequently by Democrats now than “Hispanic,” then surely the Hispanics of Africa’s Equatorial Guinea are far browner than ANY Central or South American could EVER aspire to be, so by the reasoning, shouldn’t then Equatorial Guineans get to be head of the line for a freebie to definitely prove to everyone that Americans or specifically Arizonans, are not racists?

If the oft-invoked, yet actually undefined “Hispanic” community succeeds in unlawfully forcing capitulation to allow “Hispanic” foreigners of a specified geopolitical zone, to jump the queue of legal applications for US citizenship, before all others, then who’s the NEXT group who will try mob rule to get what they want?  If it works, then it’ll become the “process.”  How many people doing it by the book will throw down their two-three-four-five years of applications, paperwork and fees with a, “The hell with this!” in disgust?

Arizona is already host to organized crime expanding out of its base in Mexico.  That the average Arizonan citizen doesn’t see much of it is a testimony to the effectiveness and diligence of our LOCAL law enforcement in confronting and containing this violent and dangerous foreign-based criminality.  WHERE are our elected officials publically thanking our law enforcement, showing solidarity, and assuring them and the public, in word and in deed, that they back every single man and women in law enforcement in Arizona?

Actions have consequences, long term consequences, sometimes irrevocable consequences. Degeneration and decay take far less energy and effort than advancement and improvement.  A loss of trust is nearly impossible to restore.  A failure to uphold fair application of laws will lead to rampant lawlessness in all levels of society.  An unwillingness to defend, by representatives who were elected by their constituents, who are the PEOPLE of the Constitution of the United States, is a failure and especially in this case, that has long-term local, state and national ramifications, none of them positive.  The People, as voters, have the responsibility to chose their representatives wisely, take personal responsibility to become informed, to be active, and to hold their representatives accountable.

Perhaps Americans have to live through a period of chaos and destruction before they truly comprehend what they had, and squandered … but with little hope then of ever recovering it.

One of the memes of this election year is to invoke “career politician” evidently in the hopes of eliciting a pejorative, unthinking, even Pavlovian response.

Political skills and knowledge are important to have to be a successful politician, and those are gained, like in every other profession, by experience, education,  practice – and  failures.

Failure can work both ways – a person can be ruined by it, or rebuild themselves stronger by it. How many successful businesspeople have said, “I learned more about what not to do and what works by my failures. I took those and from them built a winning model.”  How an individual deals with failure tells much about his or her character, oftentimes more than a success reveals.

Some professions appear to be accepting of dilettantes or the inexperienced, but those who do not have the substance to improve or advance are soon left by the wayside in any profession. Most new businesses and endeavors in America fail. The dilettantes are wiped out quickly, while others pick up and start over, taking “fail” as an education better than any college classroom course could teach.

People routinely look for “career surgeons,” “career architects,” “career engineers.” Yet this season, we voters are frequently encouraged to ignore experience and skills in favor of complete neophytes in politics? It rarely works in any other field of endeavor, requiring many other often very artificially supporting factors, so why should we ignore common sense in making decisions about political representation?  Fresh faces should always be welcome, but they need to come with solid competencies which can translate well in some measure to the political field.

But lurching to the other extreme is nonsense, too. “Career politicians” should be held to the standards one expects of any other profession: honesty, professionalism, and respect for the clients. If a “career politician” develops a record of abusing the public trust, undisciplined with other people’s money, repeated promotion of personal priorities over public, then the “career politician” should be dumped as fast as any “career building contractor” would be who produces a shoddy product, any “career physician” who misdiagnoses, overcharges or puts his or her patients through unecessary hardship,  in favor of a professional who has the skills, the honesty and the discipline to get the job done correctly.

Like “leadership,” “Career Politician” is actually a neutral term. What’s critical is the nature of the PERSON , the quality and relevancy of the skills of the “career politician,” and how responsibly and effectively that person will use those skills and experience.

John McCain, still at war.
By Joe Hagan
(reprinted from the New York Magazine)

In the end, it’s the middle-aged housewife who gets to him. On a blistering June day north of Phoenix, John McCain, short and sprightly in a baby-blue gingham button-down, has been harangued repeatedly by an antiwar demonstrator during his town-hall meeting. A couple of hours earlier, he’d had to stand red-faced while a transsexual woman made a speech about a nondiscrimination bill in Congress (“I’ll go back and review it again,” he said stiffly).

Then, during an event in a YMCA recreation facility in the suburb of Carefree, he can’t hold it together anymore. A woman takes a paper from her purse and begins reading McCain’s own concession speech from the 2008 election. After he was beaten by Barack Obama, the senator from Arizona promised “to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences.”

“That was your words,” says the woman. “I was very heartened when I heard these words, and my question is: ‘What happened?’ ”

Blinking rapidly, McCain develops an expression like a grenade about to detonate.

“Simple,” he snaps. “This administration has decided to govern from the far left without any consultations or negotiations or any compromises to be made with the other party!”

His supporters applaud, and McCain’s face twitches. “You know how many times I’ve been asked to go over to the White House to negotiate on any issue?” he asks, not waiting for an answer. “Zero,” he says with a huff. “Zero.”

McCain ends the exchange with a starkly disingenuous “Thanks very much,” the smirk on his face doing nothing to conceal his annoyance. “Next time,” he says, “please bring another speech.”

It has been a very strange season in the political career of John McCain. The former maverick who once fought his own party on everything from tax cuts to torture, who built a reputation as a prickly independent, now marches in lockstep with his party, from his objection to Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court appointment to his support of a draconian new immigration law in Arizona that would have repulsed him three years ago. When Newsweek asked him whether a maverick would take such positions, he responded that he’d never considered himself a maverick. It all seemed to defy logic.

But did it really? For John McCain, being a maverick always meant following different and contradictory scripts, according to his whim and the political realities of the moment. Long dependent on advisers to harness and manage his political energies, McCain has never resolved an inherent contradiction in his brain trust, between Rick Davis, a veteran lobbyist who helped McCain win the Republican nomination, and Mark Salter, the speechwriter who single-handedly crafted the maverick image of McCain from the early aughts. Both represent distinct parts of McCain’s psyche, the former McCain’s instinctual need to survive and fight, the latter his need for honor and dignity in the Washington snakepit (it was Salter who wrote McCain’s concession speech). And both have served him well. But this year, as McCain has been gripped by fear of political mortality, one of the voices in his head is, increasingly, drowning out the other. In a sense, the campaign he’s running is a continuation of his presidential campaign, the same battle on different ground. And though for the nation the stakes are much lower, for one man—John McCain—they are even higher.

In the spring of 2009, Nevada senator Harry Reid approached John McCain with a message, ostensibly from President Barack Obama.

“If you put an immigration bill in, we’ll get behind it,” Reid told McCain, according to a person briefed on the conversation.

McCain, who’d failed to pass an immigration bill co-sponsored with Ted Kennedy in 2007, and was roundly whipped by his own party for the attempt, was infuriated by the offer. “Me, put a bill in and he’ll get behind it?” McCain asked. “Why doesn’t the president put a bill in and I’ll get behind it?”

In a world where the economy was in turmoil and populist anger was percolating, Obama’s suggestion looked to McCain more like an invitation to political self-immolation, especially in Arizona, where McCain faced a reelection campaign in 2010 with a volatile electorate sliding toward tea-party politics. The exchange stoked lingering feelings over all that had happened in 2008: the economic collapse that stole his thunder, the bickering in his campaign, the press’s abandoning him, how the choice of Sarah Palin threw his judgment into question. He sees Obama less as the leader of all the people than a man who beat him, with a few lucky breaks. “He’s angry at Obama, at former staff, at his family life, at his fellow Americans,” says a veteran Republican strategist who has worked closely with McCain. “He’s angry.”

From the first, there has been a sense of urgency in this campaign that was absent from his presidential run. McCain told friends early on that he didn’t want to “go out like Barry Goldwater,” his Arizona predecessor in the Senate, who barely eked out his last reelection bid. Though no credible candidate had yet appeared to challenge him, McCain harbored a healthy paranoia. In addition to hiring a campaign manager in Arizona to keep tabs on the ground game, he retained the core of his presidential-campaign team, including GOP consultants Rick Davis and Charlie Black and veteran aide and speechwriter Mark Salter.

McCain’s fears began to materialize in the form of J. D. Hayworth, the former Arizona congressman turned right-wing radio-talk-show host, who began hammering McCain for supporting the bank bailouts, exploiting growing populist anger in Arizona. Hayworth galled the senator by mocking McCain’s radio advertisements on the air and naming him “Weenie of the Week.” It had the intended effect: “I’m sick of him bashing me on the air,” McCain groused to a staffer.

This past November, a Rasmussen Reports poll appeared showing Hayworth within two percentage points of McCain in a virtual Senate race. McCain was “freaked out,” says a person close to him, and he convened a meeting of his advisers. “Everybody’s head was on fire,” says the person, describing McCain as “nervous and jumpy.” Sensing his boss’s anxiety, Davis promised they’d take out Hayworth early and fast.

When McCain gets nervous, he speed-dials friends for advice. And that fall, he even called his former top strategist, John Weaver, to ask his opinion. Weaver and McCain had had a bitter falling out in 2007, precipitating the near collapse of his presidential campaign, after which McCain put Davis in charge. Weaver warned McCain that he should ignore Hayworth, that he was training too much attention on a guy who had only 30,000 listeners and appealed to a segment that would never vote for McCain anyway, namely the hard-core anti-immigration wing.

Weaver’s advice was far from unique. Even one of McCain’s oldest and dearest friends, his POW bunkmate at the Hanoi Hilton, Orson Swindle, advised McCain to “just ignore him. That was my idea.”

But McCain needed to train his ire on someone. And though Hayworth hadn’t officially announced he was running, McCain’s people agitated for an FEC complaint over Hayworth’s alleged abuse of radio airwaves to promote a political run, hoping to intimidate him. Grant Woods, a lawyer and now senior adviser on McCain’s campaign, thought it was rash and advised McCain to wait and see if they could privately dissuade Hayworth from running instead.

“Many of us thought there would be some value in trying to explore at least some kind of détente, try to keep him out of the race in some way,” says Woods. “John was never of that opinion. He basically wanted to punch the guy in the face from day one. And nothing’s changed.”

Some of McCain’s friends questioned the advice he was getting from his D.C. advisers, Davis and Black. “He makes emotional decisions,” says a GOP strategist who has worked closely with McCain. “If he says, ‘I want to do X,’ they’re like, ‘Let’s go do X on steroids.’ It’s exactly what he does not need.”

But there was something more than just McCain’s pent-up anger at work. Many in Arizona point to another factor: McCain’s pent-up money, over $20 million left from his failed presidential bid. That account could be used to fund millions in TV and radio ads in Arizona and, depending on the arrangement, McCain’s advisers could also profit. J. D. Hayworth, a loudmouth who angered and disgusted their boss, was someone to spend it on.

By training his firepower at Hayworth, McCain gave him credibility he might not otherwise have had, which many see as a strategic blunder. When Hayworth announced he was leaving his radio show, McCain was so high-strung he couldn’t even listen, having an aide relay sound bites as they came over the radio. “Go back and listen,” he said, sitting alone and speed-dialing for advice.

By setting himself up against Hayworth, McCain was locked into a fight for the tea-party vote—essentially a race to the right, one in which McCain would be hobbled by his past positions. There was intense internal debate among McCain’s advisers in the fall of 2009 about whether McCain should even appear at a tea-party rally. McCain’s chief of staff, Mark Buse, was terrified of McCain getting booed off the stage and having the image go into cable-TV rotation. Until March, his advisers repeatedly refused to let McCain appear at one.

The most complicated decision McCain had to face involved his own political Frankenstein monster. Until the fall, McCain wasn’t sure Sarah Palin, his political creation and now a catalyst for the tea party, was going to be politically advantageous for him. When asked by an adviser to reach out to her last summer, McCain growled that “it’s not the right time.” And as her book, Going Rogue, was about to launch in November, it looked like it might be too late. When asked by advisers to recruit her in the fight against Hayworth, McCain complained, “She won’t even return my calls.”

That’s because a feud was boiling between Palin and McCain’s former advisers from his presidential campaign. In a conference call the week before the book hit stores, McCain urged former advisers like Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace not to fight Palin in public, fearing a media spectacle would taint his chances. Davis said it would only help her sell more books. Salter, a close friend to Schmidt, urged McCain to show support for his former colleagues in the face of Palin’s allegations. McCain, convinced he needed Palin, was trying to avoid Salter’s calls four days before the book hit stores. “He’s going to yell at me,” he complained to aides.

Faced with a conflict between loyalty and strategy, the past and the present, McCain wasn’t just avoiding a media feud. He was about to finish dismantling the carefully constructed political identity Salter had been nurturing over the last decade.

An Iowa native with the brooding mien of a black-Irish poet and an abiding love for tragic literary heroes, Mark Salter began as a freelance speechwriter for McCain in the late eighties. Dubbed by politicos as McCain’s “alter ego,” he took a central role in McCain’s life when he co-wrote the 1999 McCain memoir, Faith of My Fathers.

In that book and the 2002 follow-up, Worth the Fighting For, Salter helped create a narrative arc from McCain’s patrimony as the son of Navy admirals, through his horrific POW internment during Vietnam, to his humiliating role in the Charles Keating savings-and-loan scandal and his phoenixlike resurrection, roping McCain’s haphazard life into a noble political profile.

His hallowed view of his boss, say friends, was rooted in Salter’s relationship to his own father, a veteran of both World War II and the Korean War. When a reporter once asked Salter about McCain’s modesty in how he discussed his POW years, Salter noted that it was “perfectly consistent with the way my father talked about his war experience.”

Salter was “almost like a son to John,” says Orson Swindle. “He’s very protective of John, perhaps to a fault. He’s extremely smart and obviously a good writer.”

But McCain didn’t necessarily see his own life the way Salter did. In fact, McCain’s writings from the seventies admitted to almost no personal change after his release from prison, as he appeared to repress emotional fallout and instead famously flew to Rio a year after his release because you “have a better chance of getting laid,” as he once told a fellow POW, later divorcing his wife to marry the wealthy blonde heiress Cindy Lou Hensley. A military psychologist, examining McCain after his five-and-a-half-year imprisonment, concluded that he had a “histrionic pattern of personality adjustment,” meaning he needed attention.

But Salter’s McCain was how McCain wanted voters to see him and how he needed to see himself: as dignified and honorable, a man worthy of his forefathers. The book transformed him into a kind of Washington contradiction: a politician for whom offhanded gaffes only improved his integrity, more barnacles on the romantic old battleship. McCain even seemed to get a pass on calling the Vietnamese “gooks” 25 years after Americans were evacuated from Saigon.

“For an extended period of time, he was the most popular politician in America,” says a former McCain adviser who admires Salter. “And the person, above all others, who was most responsible for it was Mark Salter, period.”

Salter worked hand in glove with McCain’s longtime strategist, John Weaver, a rangy Texan who encouraged McCain’s independent streak and built political strategy to fit Salter’s mythmaking. But in 2007, as McCain was preparing to run for president for the second time, Weaver became ensnared in an intense battle with a competing McCain adviser, Rick Davis. After a series of fights over the direction of the campaign (with Salter attempting to moderate on behalf of Weaver), Weaver lost a power struggle and left the campaign in disappointment, a major crack in McCain’s universe.

And Salter’s. It was the first time his idealized conception of McCain, a man for whom loyalty was supposedly a paramount virtue, was seriously tarnished. Salter wanted McCain to get out of the race gracefully, but McCain didn’t take his advice. Instead, McCain regrouped and appointed Davis, a man more interested in winning than in McCain’s soul, his new campaign manager. Though deeply rattled by the experience, Salter decided he’d come too far to quit.

“It was hard for me to leave,” says Weaver. “In hindsight, it was probably harder for Mark to stay. Mark chose a different path. I’m not going to judge it.”

Davis helped McCain win the Republican primary. When McCain’s advisers converged on Sarah Palin as a running mate, Salter opposed the choice, fearing she would tarnish McCain’s image. But McCain’s come-from-behind nomination had solidified his faith in Davis, and Salter’s idea (Tim Pawlenty) was overruled.

If the emotional fallout from the loss to Barack Obama was sublimated for McCain, it wasn’t so with Salter, who retreated to a cottage on the Maine coast and began a period of existential rumination over the direction of his life, say friends and associates. One Washington friend worried that he was falling “into this place of anger and sadness that he would not be able to get back from.”

After the chaos and dysfunction of the campaign, Salter made an important personal decision: He would continue to write speeches for McCain, and collect a check, but he would no longer fight McCain on political matters. He wanted to try his hand at writing fiction.

“There are fewer people who are willing to stand up and speak truth to power and tell McCain he’s being an asshole,” says an ex-staffer in McCain’s 2008 campaign. “And the chief person who did that is Mark Salter—and if you do that for long enough, you lose your capacity to fight. You’re totally exhausted by it.”

With Salter receding (and Schmidt and Weaver, both of whom had been committed to Salter’s vision of McCain, gone), McCain became a simpler creature. To a person, ex-advisers and staffers to John McCain describe the same man: Impulsive, emotional, dependent to a fault on the advice of others, but unwilling or unable to resolve infighting, he lets mismanagement corrupt his best intentions, winning elections and congressional victories almost despite himself.

“One thing McCain simply will not do is come down on one side or another when he’s got conflicts among staffers and advisers,” says a former adviser in Arizona. “That’s a bad problem.”

The presidential campaign had magnified these weaknesses, leaving a trail of wounded and disillusioned McCain aides who felt they’d seen the worst of American politics, the heart of McCain’s darkness. One former McCain insider says the election left a “cancer on their souls.”

The cycle of dysfunction continues even today: In May, McCain’s Arizona campaign manager, Shiree Verdone, left over internal disputes with Mark Buse, so irate that she refused for a time to take McCain’s phone calls. (Through a spokesperson, she declined to comment.)

“He’s angry at Obama, at former staff, at his fellow Americans,” says a strategist. “He’s angry.”

In the last three years, the one adviser who has survived, and even thrived, is Rick Davis. A veteran lobbyist and consultant known for jet-setting with his wealthy Russian and Middle East clientele, he is gregarious and sociable and easygoing, the opposite of Salter, the taciturn chain-smoker whose best friends are reporters. (Davis didn’t return calls.)

The choice of Palin as McCain’s vice-presidential nominee, encouraged and vetted by Davis, seemed to crystallize his influence, for better or worse. And as panic overtook McCain in early 2010, it would be Davis who channeled it into a tactical short game, advising him to co-opt Hayworth’s political turf by tacking into his positions, out-tea-partying Hayworth on immigration. Consequently, McCain’s Arizona tail wagged his Washington dog: McCain would soon reverse or greatly reel in his previous positions on torture, on cap and trade, on gays in the military, and, finally, crucially, on immigration. “Rick Davis carries the most influence with John,” says a McCain intimate. “Salter’s on the outside.”

Thus began the lurch to the right that has so captivated national media—the ones he used to call “my base”—and horrified the liberals who took McCain as an example of the right kind of conservative. But others defend him. “Does John McCain move around occasionally on issues?” asks Wes Gullett, a former McCain aide in Arizona and longtime supporter. “Yes. He’s fighting a fight. He’s a fighter. He goes to the sound of the battle.”

But McCain didn’t always like the sound he was hearing. An adviser in Arizona who knows McCain well says, “He doesn’t like doing what he’s doing.”

Which, for this person and several I spoke with, makes McCain’s transparent pandering all the more confusing: “If ever there was a political environment in which you want to be a maverick, this is it,” he says. “Why would he choose this time, with all the dynamics going on in the election, to deny what everyone knows is true? Sometimes he just checks out and you wonder what the hell is going on.”

McCain seemed to be wondering, too. When Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s old seat and agreed to campaign for McCain in Arizona, McCain could hardly believe he needed a political neophyte from the Northeast to help him draw crowds in his own state, especially one who had declined McCain’s invitation to campaign for him in Massachusetts (fearing McCain’s Establishment taint). After a rally at Grand Canyon University, McCain was annoyed when Brown tried giving him campaign advice while they drove in a car together. Three nights later, Brown and McCain were scheduled to have dinner, but McCain canceled.

But the Republican Party was emboldened by the Brown win. And in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, minority leader from Kentucky, conscripted McCain as a lead voice in the Republicans’ “Party of No” stance toward the Obama administration. In January, Harry Reid articulated what many observers were thinking: “My amazement has been John McCain. I thought he’d turn out to be a statesman, work for things. He is against everything.”

Last February, some McCain allies became concerned. Senator Lindsey Graham, perhaps McCain’s closest compatriot in the Senate, worried that McCain was undermining his reputation as a deal-maker by following in lockstep with McConnell. Graham asked John Weaver if he and Mark Salter could talk to McCain, according to a person briefed on the conversation. Weaver called McCain, this person says, urging him to “stay away from every time there’s an anti-Obama movement on the floor and they drag you out like some prop.”

A couple of days later, McCain called Weaver back and told him his advisers wanted him to lead in opposing health care. And McCain did exactly that, acting as a lead critic during Obama’s televised health-care summit in late February, where Obama chided McCain that “the election is over.” (“I’m reminded of that every day” was McCain’s retort.)

The exchange fanned McCain’s grievances over his election loss, and his legendary temper would occasionally flare up during his campaigning. McCain spokesperson Brooke Buchanan, who shadows him everywhere and writes his Twitter feed, would have to temper his rage when he came off as too harsh or bitter. During one event last spring, she told him, “You can’t do that, you’ve got to stop it.”

“Was I really bad?” he asked.

“Yeah, you can’t be that way.”

Then, in March, an Arizona rancher named Robert Krentz was shot and killed, allegedly by Mexican drug smugglers, igniting the immigration debate. Senator Graham says he realized right away that McCain was in trouble. “I said, ‘Oh, shit,’ ” says Graham. “This is just gasoline on a fire.”

Hayworth pounced on the border issue and began going after McCain’s past advocacy for immigrant workers.

McCain dove to the right, countering with a TV advertisement featuring himself walking alongside a popular Arizona sheriff, evincing concern about securing the border with a giant fence. “Complete the danged fence!” growls McCain, looking uncomfortable.

The ad was a disaster. Everyone knew McCain had never been a strong advocate of a fence, and his own campaign staffers felt he came off looking phony. But when anyone questioned the campaign’s course, McCain defended his new guru. “Rick Davis, the guy who got me the presidential nomination, you know him?” he’d snap sarcastically. “He knows everything.”

McCain hardly had time to think about what any of this was doing to his reputation. Weekend after weekend, he was driving from town hall to parade to VFW, greeting sparse crowds of 40, 50, 60 people, like he was stumping for his political life. “I didn’t work this hard in the presidential race,” he told an aide. “I can’t believe how hard I’m working.”

Desperate to hold on to his base in Arizona, McCain seemed intent on proving that his maverick days were behind him. His best chance presented itself in April, when the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, signed the controversial Senate Bill 1070, which requires immigrants to carry papers showing their legal status and allows law enforcement to pull over suspected illegals. Salter was adamantly against it. In the past, when McCain came under pressure for his immigration stance, he told people he was a “big boy” and could “take it.” But with political heat rising, he reversed course. Blaming the federal government for lack of action, McCain embraced the law as the only thing left to do in fighting Mexican drug cartels run amok, even if statistics were showing that violent crime was down last year.

In May, Mark Salter left his home in suburban Virginia to spend the next five months—almost the entirety of John McCain’s campaign—holed up in a cottage in Castine, Maine, a quaint village on Penobscot Bay.

Salter rarely sees McCain anymore, as he readily admitted when I went to see him. While he once spent fourteen hours a day in McCain’s D.C. office as his chief of staff, he is no longer the last voice McCain hears before passing judgment on major issues, his input restricted to e-mails, conference calls, and the occasional phone conversations.

“I’m indebted to him,” says Salter. “I will be for the remainder of my life. Outside my marriage and the birth of my children, going to work for him was the most determinant of my life and the most beneficial. And nobody will ever accuse me of not being grateful.”

But Salter also seems to hang on out of financial inertia. He gets paid a $12,000 monthly retainer to write speeches and commencement addresses, something he can do in his sleep after twenty years, but it’s less than half of his income. As Salter well knows, McCain’s political life is winding down, and he’s already begun migrating away from McCain Inc. In addition to corporate speechwriting, he worked briefly with John Weaver on the gubernatorial campaign of Massachusetts independent Tim Cahill.

Friends of both Salter and McCain argue over whether Salter has entered his post-McCain life or McCain his post-Salter life. But nobody who knows him believes Salter is pleased with what’s happening. “He’s in a hard place now,” says a friend. “Because he knows what’s going on right now is not right.”

Salter, as a paid employee of John McCain for Senate, is obligated to disagree, and he does, strenuously at times. Though he admits that he and Davis are different, he says he hasn’t fought him. “I can’t think of any advice I’ve heard Rick give [McCain] that I have disagreed with,” he says.

“Does the John McCain I see yesterday seem to be a substantially different human being than I’ve known for 22 years?” he asks. “Nope.”

In defending the man he loves, Salter invariably blames the media: The press abandoned him as Obama shifted the entire political field to the left, making it look like McCain was a hardened partisan when, in fact, only his emphasis had changed, not his core positions.

“Nobody ever factors in the human dimension,” he complains. “[Politicians] are like everybody else: They try, they screw up a little, they’re lucky sometimes, they’re unlucky sometimes. They try again. Nobody takes it into account. There’s a motive to everything! Who lives their lives that way? It’s Hollywood.”

Salter, of course, invented a different Hollywood version of McCain, one in which McCain courageously resisted the tide when it wasn’t popular and bucked his own party on principle. And now that movie is over.

John McCain sits stock-still, eyes shadowed by his wiry eyebrows, hair combed down slick and straight, mouth turned down in grim resolve. On a stage in a high-school auditorium in Mesa, Arizona, against the backdrop of a 30-foot American flag, this is what a statue of Senator John Sidney McCain III might look like: Veteran. Hero. Maverick.

The problem is that he’s sitting next to Mitt Romney, who, at six foot two, towers over him like a tanned and gleaming giant. McCain looks like Ed McMahon to Romney’s Johnny Carson, quietly affirming whatever Romney says, nodding and mouthing the word “Beautiful” after Romney gives a soliloquy about the American spirit. McCain detested Romney in the 2008 primary, but now he needs his star power to draw the biggest crowd he’s had since Palin was in town. This is politics—this is how you win. But some have questions.

“There are two John McCains,” muses an old friend of the senator’s. “The one I love is a very big man, and he’s willing to take on big issues in a big way. Then there’s another side of John, he’ll admit, that is petty and angry and petulant and small, and that side has overtaken the other one.”

A former adviser, echoing the sentiment of a lot of McCain’s allies, feels Rick Davis has turned Mark Salter’s vision of McCain “into melted clay.” But advisers can only explain so much. In fact, there’s a case to be made that McCain hasn’t really changed at all—maybe saying he never considered himself a maverick is just another maverick move. And, for many reasons, losing is the most intolerable thing. In Faith of My Fathers, we learn that both John McCain’s grandfather and his father, John Sidney “Slew” McCain Sr. and John Sidney McCain Jr., did not fare well upon retirement. His grandfather expressed disappointment when told the Japanese had surrendered. “I feel lost,” he said. “I don’t know what to do. I don’t know whether I know how to relax or not. I’m in an awful letdown.”

He promptly dropped dead on the living-room floor the day after he returned home in 1945. McCain’s father, who retired from the Navy in 1972, descended into despair and illness and died at age 70.

Friends of McCain say that in the recesses of his brain is a mortal fear of retirement. Engaging in daily battles is all he’s ever known. “Torture for John McCain is putting him on the burner and not letting him do anything,” says Lindsey Graham.

People who have spent years with McCain say he has always been emotionally remote, virtually alone even while surrounded by staffers. When he calls his own mother, he announces, “Hi, Mother, this is John McCain.”

And McCain has also begun thinking about his legacy. He recognizes, says a person who has spoken with him about it, that political life is fleeting, that he could one day be forgotten. It scares him. At this point, losing to J. D. Hayworth would be too much for McCain to bear, especially after all he’s sacrificed to prevent it.

“That’s no way to go out,” says Grant Woods, a longtime friend of McCain’s. “You don’t live the life he’s lived and lose to a goof like J. D. Hayworth.”

Ironically, both McCain’s opponent and his own supporters agree on one thing: If he wins, he’ll probably morph yet again, a lame-duck senator with nothing to lose, tacking left to reclaim his old mantle as a thorn in his party’s side. It’s what friends like Graham envision for him.

“What I hope will happen is that he’ll be the force against excess and the person who can find that common ground we need to have as a nation. That’s what I hope will happen, and that’s what I expect will happen.”

“Here’s the question for John,” Graham adds. “If he’s asked to support comprehensive immigration reform, does he support it?”

That’s anybody’s guess. But if Worth the Fighting For, McCain’s 2002 book, is any guide, it’s easy enough to imagine what he might say after November should he win reelection. In that book, McCain admitted that in the 2000 presidential primary, he’d supported South Carolina’s right to fly the Confederate flag against his own belief that it was a symbol of racism.

“I didn’t want to do this,” he says. “But I could tell from the desperate looks of my staff that we had an enormous problem. And that it could come down to lying or losing. I chose lying.”

At the request of James Allen, I’m reposting his article here. You can find the original at http://jamesallenshow.com/blog/2009-11-28-13-43-29.html.

In the current condition of our political landscape, we Republicans could say that we are in exile, captivity, or wandering in the wilderness. We hear things like “conservatism in exile” on the Sean Hannity Show and “refounding America” on the Glenn Beck Program. Witnessing this phenomenon in the news and also from the R.N.C. leadership harping on the need for a bigger tent, the question of who will lead the Republican Party in 2010 and 2012 haunts the airwaves.

I find this idea laughable. The Republican Party is not in need of a charismatic spokesman or master rhetorician. First, we need to rediscover the principles that separate our party from its opposition—call them progressives, the left, the Democrats, etc.—before a legitimate leader can even be identified. All the talk about who will become the next Reagan assumes that someone out there actually understands what Reagan did.

It has been said that it would be rather simple to just train a leader, if there were one, to reiterate the correct message. However, such a statement misses the point entirely. The message is clear because it has been conserved from Mount Sinai to Greece to Rome to London…and then finally to Philadelphia in the Constitutional Convention and boldly consolidated in the Declaration of Independence. As Russell Kirk taught us, the permanent things remain. In essence, these are the universal principles that make America unique and will give the Republican Party a great advantage. I am a conservative because I am conserving these permanent principles against the prevailing skepticism of our day, and I am a Republican because I believe in a Republican form of governance. (I hope you realize that we live in a republic and not a democracy. If you do not understand this, please stop reading now because you will be wasting your time.)

So, are we in exile? This is an interesting question, and the answer is simple: No. We are not in exile—we still live in a right-of-center country. We see this in the discontentment of Americans taking to the streets during the first nine months of the current administration. With Cap and Trade and the Health Care bills going to the Senate, we are witnessing the goals of the Progressive movement coming to fruition—the state control of the individual in every detail of his life. Please understand, this goal has been a well-calculated plan for over eighty years, and we (conservatives) must put a plan in place to return to the promised land of liberty, equality, natural rights, consent of the governed, religious freedom, private property, the rule of law, constitutionalism, self-government, and independence. These are the “ten plagues” that will destroy the Progressive movement and the ten principles that Matthew Spalding has so eloquently expressed in his book, “We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming our Future,” a must-read if you are interested in destroying this notion that we are in exile.

So, are we in captivity? This is not as simple of a question to answer because we are free to act on our liberty if we want to, but without the knowledge of the previous mentioned ideals, we are stuck in an Egypt of our own ignorance and on the way to wandering in a wasteland of statism. Our founders made a very bold statement in saying, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” As a political community we must indeed hold these truths, but those truths were only self-evident at that time due to the culture. They have been forgotten, and we need to teach these truths, and the principles upon which they stand, to each generation to prepare our heirs with the proper arguments and understanding to face the challenges of the day. These truths are not known by intuition, experience, or social experimentation, and they are not merely a result of what we like, but they are known through inference and education. As President Reagan noted, “We didn’t pass it on to our children in the blood stream.” We must learn to argue for these positions, stand on the shoulders of the giants of Western Civilization and realize that this is an ideological battle, age-long, and often agonizing.

So, are we wandering? Yes! We are indeed wandering in the wilderness trying to be everything to everyone. We have been trying to make our tent so big that the tent is collapsing. We are falling into the relativistic thinking of our opponents because we have been unwilling or unable to show how our principles, and the truths upon which they stand, are clear. Recently, the 2008 Republican Party Platform was taken down from the AZ GOP website. Naturally, you must be asking yourself, “Why?” Could it be a broken link, broken thinking, or maybe a broken party? I would suggest that it is broken thinking, and thankfully, it is back up at the GOP website. However, it is still very difficult to find—as if we should be ashamed of our conservative platform. The current administration is doing us a great favor by moving so fast with their progressive platform that it is shaking the ordinary citizenry out of their apathy. It is driving the average person back to these first principles and the truths upon which they stand, and it is creating a desire to understand the American ideal. This momentum—if backed with a concern for our history and heritage and the willingness to do the hard work of overcoming objections—can leave us with hope that our country will improve dramatically.

With a renaissance of conservative thought, the Congress can be taken back in 2010 and the Presidency in 2012, but if we stop there it will not be enough. Just as a person learns to become a carpenter or an engineer, we too need to learn to become citizens and not mere taxpayers.

I still hold these truths—do you? If you say yes, you’d better be ready to give an argument, because traditions change. The internal rules of institutions are not universal, and our country requires a common goal, but truth is clear and can be shown by reason. The truths enumerated in our founding documents are precious and are in need of our care. We have been given a republic if we can keep it, and what was self-evident to our founders is no longer self-evident today.

On Monday, June 28, 2010, conservative talk show host and best selling author delivered a scathing monologue on John McCain at the same time he reaffirmed his commitment to and endorsement of JD Hayworth.

YouTube Preview Image

by Michael Halliday

At the upcoming debates between JD Hayworth, John McCain and Jim Deakin on June 16th in Phoenix and the17th in Tucson, Republican Senatorial hopeful Deakin says he is “…pleased to be part of the American experience and look forward to the opportunity of exposing the records of two entrenched politicians.”  Sounds promising, but coming from an Ivory Tower position of invincible inexperience; hence, no real appreciable record with which we can contrast him to the other candidates, I’m more than a little interested in what his proposed real-world solutions are to Arizona’s spiraling list of intractable problems.

So, how do we realistically assess him?  We go with what we know.

What we do have is a record of Jim’s promises and words to describe his positions on several issues.  So, let’s focus on what he’s telling us he’s about.  Number one on his list, from his own campaign website is: “Protect Freedom.”  Sounds good on the face of it. Who doesn’t want to protect freedom?  Jim then goes on to say, under this rubric, “Government regulation used to control individual freedom and liberty must be stopped.”  Then, “Government oversight to protect individual freedom and liberty is required.”

Sounds OK at first blush; however, aren’t regulation and oversight the same thing? Or, can you have one without the other?  What oversight, specifically?  What regulation, specifically? Who, what, why, where, when, how?  In other words, nice glittering generalities but no meat or substance to Jim’s proposal is given.  However, it sounds populist, distinctly Tea Partyish in flavor, and rather appealing to our raw emotions.

Under the heading “Protect Freedom,” Jim reiteratively paints with a broad brush and asserts two mutually exclusive goals that seem to contradict one another:  “win against terrorism” and  “end the Patriot Act.”  Isn’t the primary goal of the Patriot Act to aid us in the war against terrorism? Again, on the face of it, it sounds good.  However, I ask once more “who, what, where, why, when, how?”  But at the core of it, this is what bothers me.  Jim says he wants to win against terrorism (we all do) but then seemingly takes the reckless, liberal ACLU position of ending the Patriot Act altogether.

Does Mr. Deakin want to end the whole Patriot Act or only those portions that potentially infringe upon the rights of US citizens?  Are there any good aspects to the act?  Once again, it sounds like he’s trying to have his cake, “Government regulation…must be stopped” and eat it too, “Government oversight…is required.”  Would someone please open the window of reality and let in a fresh draft of common sense because I think Jim’s been breathing the rarified hot air of empty rhetoric and sloganeering a little too long; hence, he sounds a bit light headed, and possibly out of touch with reality.

Let’s focus in a little on the Patriot Act that Jim, along with the ultra-liberal ACLU, wants to put an end to because it’s not often that you see such a destructive organization siding with a conservative candidate of Jim’s pedigree, or should I say, one having Jim’s lack of legislative experience.

There are actually parts of the Patriot Act that are good. What we don’t need is excessive fear mongering, either for or against the Patriot Act, simply to gain votes.  Terrorism is a much more serious subject than that!

Some good points of the Patriot Act are:

  • It prohibits Aliens who commit money laundering from entering the U.S.
  • It provides grants to first responders to help respond to and prevent terrorism.
  • It provides airlines the names of suspected terrorists before they board flights.
  • It prohibits any investigations on citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment.
  • It provides for the enforcement of trade sanctions against communist North Korea and Taliban controlled Afghanistan.
  • It provides for the much-needed employment of foreign translators for the FBI.
  • An official or employee of the government who acts corruptly — as well as the person who induces the corrupt act — in the carrying out of their official duties is subject to being fined.
  • Aliens, and their families — who are part of or representatives of a foreign organization, or any group who endorses acts of terrorism — are prevented from entering the U.S.

So, you see, to the authentic conservative mind, there are some positive aspects of the Patriot Act.  However, it’s much more convenient, and intellectually lazy, to just write the whole Patriot Act off as a further step toward the implementation of the New World Order, rather than to examine its positive, security-enhancing effects.  I have my own personal objections to parts of the Patriot Act, as do most patriotic Americans, but maturity, experience and a solid grasp of the issues dictates that I not be so irresponsible as to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Jim says, “end the Fed.”  That’s nice.  And what to you propose to replace it with?  Nothing?  Does the Fed provide any good functions or are they all bad?  Would you rather that we turned the printing of money over to an out of control Congress?  “Balance the Federal Budget.”  Again, how?

Jim seems adept, at pointing out a lot of problems while offering little in the way of practical solutions.  Perhaps he’s bitten off a little more than he can chew.  Maybe he will make his positions a little more clear on what he’s going to do, and how he’s going to do it, rather than simply attacking the opposition.  Or, as one political blogger so aptly put it, “Please afford us an understanding of why you are a good option.”

By Steve Benen (Washington Monthly)

Bookers for the Sunday shows have shown admirable restraint of late. They continue to book Joe Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, and Newt Gingrich with painful frequency, but they’ve gone two whole months without inviting John McCain back on.

Don’t worry; the Sunday shows just can’t quit him that easily. “Meet the Press” made this announcement the other day:

This Sunday: Exclusive! Sen. John McCain

President Obama relieves Gen. Stanley McChrystal of his command in Afghanistan after his comments about the president’s diplomatic team causes a firestorm in Washington and undermines the President’s strategy in Afghanistan. How will Obama’s decision impact the war going forward? Will McChrystal’s replacement, CENTCOM Commander Gen. David Petraeus, be able to successfully lead the effort in Afghanistan? Plus, the upcoming midterm elections and the future of the GOP. We’ll ask a man in the center of it all: fighting his own tight re-election battle to the Senate and serving as the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

I especially enjoyed the “Exclusive!” with the exclamation point, as if this were a rare, special occurrence. It’s not.

For those keeping score — and you know I am — this will be McCain’s 22nd appearance on a Sunday morning talk show since Obama’s inauguration. That’s an average of 1.3 appearances a month, every month, for over a year — more than any other public official in the country.

Since the president took office 17 months ago, McCain has been on ABC’s “This Week” three times (9.27.09, 8.23.09, and 5.10.09), CNN’s “State of the Union” four times (1.10.10, 10.11.09, 8.2.09, and 2.15.09), CBS’s “Face the Nation” five times (1.24.10, 10.25.09, 8.30.09, 4.26.09, and 2.8.09), and “Fox News Sunday” five times (4.18.10, 12.20.09, 7.2.09, 3.8.09, and 1.25.09). His appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” tomorrow will be his fifth since Obama’s inauguration (6.27.10, 2.28.10, 12.6.09, 7.12.09, and 3.29.09).

Obviously, there’s no reason for this. In the announcement, “Meet the Press” seemed to justify the invitation by saying it was a big week with regards to U.S. policy in Afghanistan — and it was. But John McCain has never demonstrated any meaningful understanding of the war policy. On the contrary, he’s been routinely confused. “How will Obama’s decision impact the war going forward?” It’s a good question, but McCain’s hardly the best person to answer it.

McCain lost a presidential election; he’s not in the GOP leadership; he’s not especially influential with anyone; he’s not playing an active role in shaping any legislation; and he doesn’t appear to have any expertise in any area of public policy. The Sunday shows seem to book him out of habit. It’s farcical.

A guest opinion by James Allen.  The original can be found here.

The New Class Warfare: The Public vs. Private Sector

During economically difficult times we need a way to unite under a common banner. Gender, race, and socio-economic class are so 20th century, and I have the solution to level the uneven playing field. As Americans, we first and foremost believe in liberty – you know that expression of freedom that allows individual talents and ideas to grow. My plan is to unite the country under a new “class warfare.” Unity requires a common enemy and what can be more common than appealing to the common authority – you know that thing we all despise because it wastes our money and tells us what to do, while smiling in the camera.

To win votes, this grinning leviathan called Government often likes to pit people against each other and say that it’s fighting for you, the little person, against that malevolent big person in what is called “class warfare”. But class warfare has been around for a long time and the old divisions, while still lingering to a certain extent, are losing their power. So, we need a new way to divide people. The new class warfare is not black against white or man against women or rich against poor or even minorities against the white-man. So, move over Jesse Jackson and the race hustling industry. Step aside John Edwards with your “Two Americas.” Get out of the way Rosy O’Donnell with your feminist dripping sarcasm, and Michael Moore take a few notes as we dismantle the separation between the proletariat and bourgeoisie.

The new class warfare is against the money-sucking-vacuum of the highly paid and under achieving public sector against the withering money-tree of the private sector – something all of us can get behind. Well, all of us except for the government workers out there, which, for the first time have actually exceeded those working the private sector…

Currently, we live under the assumption that those in power are experts – maybe expert campaigners, but that is a story for a different day. We are told that we need the state to fund state parks and we believe them. We are told that we have to pay an extra two percent sales tax on food to save police, fire fighters, teachers, libraries, and senior centers, and we don’t think twice. We are told that we can spend our way out of bankruptcy and we need more government regulation because the current government regulation just wasn’t quite stringent and controlling enough to do the trick. Yet, we are also told that higher taxes and higher regulation will somehow equal more jobs and boost the economy instead of strangling the private sector until it shrinks out of existence. Unfortunately, I have a sneaking suspicion that this could be the plan for some, but to those who don’t actually dream of a neo-Marxist utopian society, I believe we have more opportunity for good in the private sector, and this opportunity not only allows us to turn a profit (which is essentially the idea that a person has a right to keep the fruits of their labor), but to use our talents with our liberty to make the most of our communities and of ourselves and produce a pretty decent place to live. Utopia be damned!  The problem here is that federal, county, city and other elected officials are using our emotions against us. We need to be just as smart as they think they are and see through the constant appeals to pity, with which we are bombarded.

When government employees make 45% more than private sector employees, mixed together with 14.8 million Americans out of work or looking for work, we have the ingredients for a new “class warfare.” I know what you are thinking, and fairness and social justice for all is on my mind, as well. So, I made list of questions to help clarify my point.

  1. Should the public sector (or state) create jobs that the private sector can fill?
  2. What happens when public sector jobs can no longer pay for themselves?
  3. Why should government workers get paid so much?
  4. Should government workers’ benefits extend beyond the time that they are working?
  5. When did it become morally wrong to allow the private sector to pick up the opportunity for jobs that, in essence, they are already paying for through taxes?
  6. Do public sector jobs actually create anything besides more tax revenue from the private sector?
  7. Why has the stimulus plan profited public sector jobs more than private sector jobs?
  8. When we hear about private sector growth, why is it always in the context of “Green Jobs?”
  9. What would happen if the pay for public sector jobs were cut by 10 to 15%?
  10. Do we really need the government in so many aspects of out lives, as if we cannot be trusted in the creation of our own wealth?

This new class warfare is unfortunately a reality that we must face because our economy, properly understood, is one of the foundations of our society. This does not mean that gender wars have ceased or that racism is a thing of the past. It is rather one more mountain to overcome as the issue of fairness and justice are continually misunderstood, as we fight for the soul of America.

Next Page »