Courtesy Patriot Post
Arizona Politics, News, Commentary and Information with a Blatantly Conservative Worldview Presented by an Alliance of Writers, Activists, Consultants and Government Insiders.
FoxNews has posted an interview with outgoing Governor Brewer in which she assesses President Obama’s performance as a ‘failed president.’
In the interview, conducted by FoxNews correspondent William La Jeunesse, Brewer calls Obama a ‘very big disappointment’ and ‘thin-skinned.’
She recalls the January, 2012 encounter in which she and the President had words on the tarmac at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. During that confrontation, Obama voiced his objection to Brewer’s presentation of him in her book Scorpions for Breakfast. When Brewer asked Obama why the federal government continued to fail in protecting Arizona’s border, Obama rudely walked away from her. The desert dust-up video went viral and made Governor Brewer a hero with conservatives.
The interview further summarizes Brewer’s battle with the federal government and judges over SB1070 and issuing driver’s licenses to DREAMers.
When La Jeunesse brings up critics allegation of racism, Brewer responds, “Those of us born and raised in the southwest are not racists. Those people are our neighbors. We go to church with us. Their children go to school. They marry into our families. This has nothing to do with racism. The bottom line is the rule of law and what it is doing to our country.”
Brewer is also asked about states rights and her battle against Obamacare in the courts and weighs this against conservative criticism of her expansion of Obamacare’s Medicaid $2 billion program in Arizona. When confronted by La Jeunesse about the hypocrisy of taking a federal handout, she replies, “We have to have our hand out and accept those dollars because a lot of those things we’re delivering services for are mandated on the State of Arizona.”
Finally, the media clip features an assessment by long-time Arizona political journalist Howard Fischer who refers to Brewer as a “political animal.”
Here’s the entire interview:
Monday’s live broadcast with Hugh Hewitt and ice cream social with local elected officials was a huge success! I’m grateful to everyone who attended or tuned-in during the three-hour show to learn more about what I want to accomplish as Arizona’s next governor.
If you missed it, click the play button or bolded “click here” text below to listen to individual segments from your favorite elected officials.
CLICK HERE to listen to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker • CLICK HERE to listen to former Senator John Kyl • CLICK HERE to listen to Congressman Trent Franks • CLICK HERE to listen to former Congressman John Shadegg • CLICK HERE to listen to Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery • CLICK HERE to listen to Arizona State Representative Paul Boyer • CLICK HERE to listen to City of Phoenix Councilman Sal DiCiccio • CLICK HERE to listen to The Goldwater Institute’s Clint Bolick
I’d especially like to thank Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Congressman Trent Franks, former Senator Jon Kyl, former Congressman John Shadegg, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Arizona State Representative Paul Boyer, City of Phoenix Councilman Sal DiCicco and The Goldwater Institute’s Clint Bolick for joining me and Hugh on-air to discuss Arizona’s future and why they’re supporting my campaign.
There was no denying the enthusiasm at this event, for both Arizona’s future and my campaign. I’m confident that with your help, we will see success in August and beyond.
See you on the campaign trail,
Here’s your chance to nominate (or brag on) the most interesting liberals and conservatives in Arizona. Think about the individuals you would like to have dinner with and would be most entertained by. These individuals could be policy wonks, public relations pros, political consultants, members of the media or elected officials.
Effort To Stop APS From Killing Independent Solar In AZ Takes To Radio
(SCOTTSDALE, Ariz.) Following in his father’s footsteps as a conservative trailblazer in Arizona, Barry Goldwater Jr. is standing up to utility monopolies to preserve Arizona’s rooftop solar industry.
The voice of T.U.S.K (Tell Utilities Solar won’t be Killed), Goldwater can now be heard valley-wide in a new radio commercial that urges energy consumers to stand up to Arizona Public Service (APS). Goldwater and T.U.S.K oppose efforts by APS to extinguish rooftop solar in Arizona by trying to eliminate a cornerstone policy called net metering.
To listen to the commercial click here. To learn more about T.U.S.K. visit www.dontkillsolar.com
Net metering ensures that customers with rooftop solar get fair market credit from APS for any extra power they return to the grid. Conservatives in Arizona have stood up for school choice and healthcare choice, and now they are standing up for energy choice.
If APS pulls the plug on net metering, thousands of jobs would be lost. Businesses would suffer. Schools that utilize net metering will be sending more tax dollars to APS. Consumers would pay more.
“Energy choice is the American way. It’s the Republican way. And it’s the way to energy independence,” said Goldwater. We can’t allow monopolies to end consumer choice by changing the rules at the Arizona Corporation Commission.”
Barry Goldwater Jr. served 14 years in Washington and amassed expertise in energy, the space program, aviation and defense and government procurement. Goldwater was particularly instrumental in all facets of energy policy and research and development, including authoring the Solar Photovoltaic Act.
T.U.S.K. believes that rooftop solar is similar to a charter school—it provides a competitive alternative to the monopoly. Monopoly utilities aren’t known for reducing costs or for driving business innovation, but the Arizona solar industry is. Solar companies have a track record of aggressive cost reduction in Arizona. The more people use rooftop solar, the less power they need to buy from the utilities. Energy independence for Arizonans means smaller profits for the utilities, so APS is doing everything it can to stop solar.
Sub headline: A Boy and His Dog
Politicos in Southern Arizona have been speculating for a few months that Mark Kelly might run for his wife’s former congressional seat in 2014.
Mark and Gabby have been in front of the cameras promoting gun control through their newly formed Americans for Responsible Solutions. Shortly after rolling out the new initiative, Kelly was spotted actually buying an AR-15 for himself – or not. The transaction was actually cancelled by the gun store because it appeared Kelly was not purchasing the rifle for his personal use, a violation of federal law.
The AR-15 story was still going strong when this video pops up on the internet. The news report claims the dog belongs to his daughter. She does not have anywhere near the control over the animal that Kelly has.
The hypocrisy of liberals is that they want women to pee and puke while being raped while members of the left get to go around buying the very gun they seek to ban and they can own dogs that kill furry little animals that the rest of us are suppose to protect.
Congratulations to my friend, Chris DeRose, on the release of his second book, Congressman Lincoln: The Making of America’s Greatest President.
Chris’ book came out today as he launches his book tour.
Here is the Amazon description of Chris’ book:
A biography of the early years and personal struggles of the famous frontier politician who led the United States during its darkest hours, centering on his little-known congressional years. This the story of an Abraham Lincoln many Americans aren’t at all familiar with. Lincoln as a reluctant husband in an abusive relationship; Lincoln who came within moments of fighting a duel with a political adversary; the first and only president to patent an invention; the first future president to argue before the Supreme Court.
Though remembered as a Republican, and even more as a figure that transcended partisan politics, Congressman Lincoln reveals Abraham Lincoln as a master political strategist and member of the Whig Party, the one to which he belonged for the majority of his career. Before he appealed to the America’s purest instincts, he argued “The Whigs have fought long enough for principle and ought to begin to fight for success.” Before “malice toward none,” Lincoln bragged of his opponent “I’ve got the preacher by the balls.”
Lincoln the policymaker is remembered for his conduct of the Civil War, and his handling of slavery. But even during his Presidency, Lincoln was concerned with a broad array of issues. As a party leader, candidate for Congress, and member of the House, Lincoln worked on stimulus spending, international trade, banking, and even the Post Office. And it would be in the Thirtieth Congress that Lincoln would first move to halt the expansion of slavery, carefully crafting a bill for gradual emancipation in the District of Columbia.
This is the story of America at a critical time. The tale of a Congress that ended a conflict, unsure of what they had gained aside from a seat strapped to a powderkeg, of a party aiming to win the Presidency at all costs, paving the path for its own extinction, and of a country charting an irreversible course toward Civil War. Moreover, it is the story of the man who lead the United States during its darkest hours and his role at the center of this gathering storm. This is the story of Congressman Abraham Lincoln.
by Anonymous Because I Could Lose My Job
Usually, rank-and-file voters make up their minds last minute. Additionally, they only really bother to vote in the races at the top of the ticket: President, U.S. Senate, Congress, and Governor. State offices tend to fall by the wayside. If voters aren’t going to bother to be informed, it’s not such a bad thing because no one in their right mind would advocate for the uninformed casting votes. But if you live in the new LD 20, if you are going to bother to vote down-ticket from the Presidential race, the U.S. Senate race, and Congressional races, much less vote at all, it’s high time you know the truth about the LD 20 Arizona Senate candidate named Doug Quelland. Elections have consequences. If you vote for him, just know the kind of person you’ll be voting for.
Voters should know Quelland has been removed from office before because he violated a number of campaign finance laws. In fact, Quelland is continuing to skirt the law even today by putting up “Q” signs without the required “paid by” disclosure (more on this later). Once you learn about Quelland’s assertions about his campaign finance as opposed to the evidence to the contrary, couple that with his claims about his political beliefs as opposed to his record, and see his actions today, you’ll understand that the man has a continuing track record of fundamental dishonesty.
The only thing worse than a politician that lies is a lying politician that stands for nothing. Doug Quelland is that politician. In the past, Quelland has campaigned as a conservative, but his voting record shows him as anything but. His scores from Goldwater Institute, Americans for Prosperity, and Pachyderm Coalition show that his votes have been all over the map: some years, he scored as high as the most conservative members; other years, he was the most liberal Republican in the House.
Is this really who you want to vote for?
QUELLAND’S DISHONESTY re PAYING A POLITICAL CONSULTANT WITH BUSINESS FUNDS IN 2008
During the 2008 campaign season, Quelland, mid-stream, decided to become a “participating” candidate. Quelland failed to disclose a consulting contract with Larry Davis of Intermedia PR that he was required to disclose when he became a Clean Elections candidate. Quelland asserts that he aborted the contract 2 days after he made it and before he became a participating candidate, never paid the consultant at all and wasn’t required to report it. However, the CCEC produced a number of checks from Quelland’s Q-Land Enterprises, Inc. business account to the consultant during the course of the campaign. Not only were payments made, but the corporate payments to the consultant were made on the exact same time schedule agreed to in the contract that Quelland claimed he terminated. Clean Elections candidates can’t accept corporate donations, but Quelland financed his “clean elections” campaign not only with public money, but with his business’ money too. One could argue that Quelland sought to circumvent campaign finance laws by trying to pay a consultant through his business so the corporate donations would be off the campaign books and undetectable. Additional information tends to prove that Quelland didn’t terminate the contract at all: the consultant did campaign work for Quelland, got a campaign debit card to make expenditures, worked with vendors for Quelland’s campaign, collected signatures for him and held two fundraisers for him. What’s worse is that Quelland testified that the consultant collected no signatures for his campaign, but signed petitions show that the consultant did collect signatures. In simple terms, Quelland lied to the CCEC about hiring the consultant, illegally paid the consultant through his business account, and lied about the consultant collecting signatures for him. Granted, Quelland asserts that he hired Intermedia to do work for his businesses and that Davis did volunteer work for his campaign, but if that’s true, why wasn’t there a separate contract for business services and only the contract for campaign services that Quelland claims he terminated and why did the corporate payments to Intermedia match the schedule in the political consulting contract?
QUELLAND VIOLATED SPENDING CAPS
If one runs as a participating candidate, they agree, up front, to spending limits. Quelland’s corporate payments to Intermedia not only were illegal because they were business donations, but the amount spent put Quelland well over the spending limits he agreed to. Do you want to vote for someone who violates agreements? Is it honest? Is it the level of honesty that you expect from a politician?
QUELLAND VIOLATED CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES WITH HIS WEBSITE
In addition to violating the CCEC campaign funding rules by failing to disclose the political consulting contract when he chose to become a participating candidate and paying for the political consulting services with his corporate accounts, he re-used a campaign website he used from 2006 and failed to report its use to the CCEC. According to CCEC rules, Quelland was required to report the use of the website and count the fair market value of the site’s use as a campaign expense. Quelland failed to make any report of the site.
QUELLAND’S VOTING RECORD
As mentioned before, Quelland made representations to those who signed his petitions that he was a conservative. True conservatives believe in, and endeavor not to waver from, a set of principles: less taxation, less spending, smaller government, the law meaning what it says (that is the rule of law as opposed to judicial activism). A hallmark of true conservatism is a consistent voting record. In 2003 and 2006, the Goldwater Institute gave Quelland scores that put him in the middle of the Republican pack. In 2004 and 2005, according to Goldwater, Quelland earned scores that put him in the company of top conservatives.
In 2009, Goldwater scored him as one of the most liberal Republicans in the legislature. The Pachyderm Coalition gave him the lowest score of any Republican in the legislature that year for the regular session, but their special session report marks him as a middle-of-the-road Republican.
In 2010, according to Goldwater, Quelland returned to voting with the middle of the Republican pack. Americans for Prosperity’s 2010 score card that includes cumulative scoring gives Quelland a rating that equates him with liberal Republicans. Pachyderm’s ratings that year again gave Quelland the lowest marks in the legislature.
As is illustrated by these scores, Quelland oscillates politically like a garden sprinkler. He’s all over the map from year to year. The fact that the man is absolutely inconsistent in his voting record shows that no voter can trust what the man says he believes in because he may vote the opposite way the very next year.
DOUG QUELLAND’S CONTINUING, CONSISTENT PATTERN OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY
If you live in LD 20 or the immediate area, you’ve likely seen red “Q” signs that are similar to campaign signs. While, Quelland has claimed the signs are promoting his business, the “business signs” are the size of campaign signs, they’re put up in the exact same areas as other political signs, are erected during campaign season, and are shuttled to their spots in a truck covered in Quelland for Senate signs. Most importantly, Quelland asks supporters to put a Q sign in their yards on his political website. If the Q signs are not political signs, why does he ask supporters to put them up in their yards like they are campaign signs? Additionally, the signs on the truck have no “paid by” disclosure either. But this isn’t all when it comes to Quelland’s consistently dishonest behavior!
This election cycle, Quelland has paid for letters distributed to homes in the district inviting the residents to visit his campaign website and learn about his policy positions. Quelland claimed that he put “paid by” stickers on the letters and the stickers must have fallen off, but when the Secretary of State’s office tried to remove one of the stickers Quelland claims he applied, the letter was damaged. Considering the letter was damaged when the sticker was removed, do YOU believe the stickers “just fell off”?
Even after the complaint about Quelland’s letters arose, one local news outlet noticed that Quelland’s campaign website also lacked the requisite funding disclosures. Since the news outlet pointed out the lack of campaign disclosures on Quelland’s website, the disclosure has been added. So, taken in the aggregate, one can see that Quelland has serious difficulties with campaign finance requirements and an inability to tell the truth about it. One might think that if a candidate had encountered difficulties with campaign finance disclosures, they might become paranoid about them and disclose who things are paid by more often than is necessary, but Quelland seems to take the opposite lesson.
Quelland has an outstanding CCEC judgment against him for $31,000 from 2009 and he has yet to pay it. Apparently, he has an agreement to pay the judgment, but he has not adhered to the agreement. According to one source, he has a, “wink and a nod agreement with the Attorney General.” In other words, Quelland and the AG put up a written agreement to make it appear that there’s enforcement, but Quelland has no intention of paying back the $31,000 and the AG will do nothing to truly see that the fine is paid.
Between his website and linked Twitter account, Quelland states that he will personally visit every household in LD 20. Numerous individuals questioned about visits by Quelland said that they were never paid a visit by him. Insignificant? Sure, but it shows a consistent, continuing pattern of dishonesty by Quelland.
CURRENT THOUGHT ABOUT QUELLAND’S CAMPAIGN
In a recent Capitol Times article, consultants noted that Quelland hasn’t raised very much money for his campaign and has contributed personal funds to keep the campaign going. The consultants interviewed were dismissive of his campaign. That’s dangerous. Any candidate should always take their opponents seriously lest they be upset. One of the consultants stated that if Quelland wanted to win, he needed to stroke a big personal check, but if he stroked a personal check it suggests he could pay the fine he’s been willfully ignoring.
The only thing consistent about Quelland is inconsistency. There’s inconsistency in the fabricated excuses he tried to sell the CCEC, inconsistency in his voting record, and inconsistency between his current behavior and the law. Voters expect candidates to fulfil their promises: promises to pay fines, promises to abide by campaign finance laws, promises to be transparent in their campaign funding, and promises to adhere to either party platforms or stated positions. Quelland can’t be counted on to fulfill any promises.
If one speculates that Quelland may actually believe the lies he’s told, one might discern a pattern of insanity in the man. Quelland’s actions actually conform when viewed through the lens of insanity as an explanation for his actions: believing his own lies; megalomania, believing he’s above the law, expressed in his consistent flaunting of disclosure laws and refusal to pay the judgment against him; the strange moustache; outrageous assertions that he’s visited every home in the district…it all fits. Granted, this is all pure speculative musings from someone with no expertise in the mental health field.
Elections have consequences. If you’re going to vote, learn what you can about the candidates and vote as wisely as possible. The questions remains, LD 20 voters, considering everything above, is this the man you want representing you? Is he reflective of your views? Is this the man you want standing in your stead casting votes in your name?
by Rachel Alexander
October 3, 2012
While national political campaigns and politicians are regularly featured in the news for their accomplishments on the right, one small state-based think tank is quietly grinding away victory after victory. The Goldwater Institute was already a leading state-based think tank when libertarian lawyer Clint Bolick came on board five years ago to launch a litigation division. Since then, Bolick has greatly expanded the reach of the right-leaning think tank, filing lawsuits against all levels of government to protect taxpayers and businesses from government overreach. Bolick’s favorite line, which he says with a grin, is, “I get paid to sue government bureaucrats.”
Bolick’s litigation against government dates back to his days at The Institute for Justice, the libertarian public interest litigation firm he co-founded with Chip Mellor in 1991. Between his tenure at the Institute for Justice and the Goldwater Institute, Bolick served as President and General Counsel of the Alliance for School Choice, where he became a hero of the school choice movement, aggressively defending tuition voucher programs around the country. Bolick has successfully won landmark precedents defending school choice, freedom of enterprise, private property rights and challenging corporate subsidies and racial classifications.
Phoenix Magazine calls the Goldwater Institute “a ninja-lawyer squad.” Conservative writer George Will wrote in 2010, “Pound for pound, the Goldwater Institute is the best (state-level) think tank in the country.” The Goldwater Institute was launched in 1988, appropriately named after Arizona’s famous conservative, the late Barry Goldwater. Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ) was the Executive Director, and left a few years later to run for Congress. The Institute built up a respected reputation as a public policy think tank, issuing exhaustively researched policy reports about local government. Darcy Olsen, a bright young visionary, became President and CEO in 2001 and wisely expanded the organization by bringing in Bolick to start a litigation center, the first of its kind for a state-based policy group.
One of the Goldwater Institute’s first most notable victories was taking down Arizona’s publicly-funded political campaign system, Clean Elections. Clean Elections is funded by traffic tickets and taxpayers who choose to contribute $5 on their taxes, which reduces their taxes by $5. Implemented by voters through a ballot initiative in 2000, the agency immediately began aggressively targeting conservative candidates. In 2002, Matt Salmon, the Republican candidate for governor, was harshly penalized by Clean Elections through its “matching funds” provision. Salmon was the only major gubernatorial candidate who declined to run using Clean Elections funding. Anytime he raised private funds, Clean Elections would award a matching amount to his opponents, including Democratic candidate Janet Napolitano.
Even more grossly unfair was that Salmon was essentially penalized by Clean Elections for his expenses. When President Bush came to Arizona and raised $750,000 for Salmon, Salmon only received $500,000, since $250,000 went to expense the fundraiser. Yet Napolitano and another opponent were each awarded a full $750,000 in matching funds. Another way Salmon was penalized was by matching independent expenditures. When Republicans spent $330,000 to help Salmon, Clean Elections wrote checks for that amount to both of Salmon’s opponents. Yet when the Democrats spent $1 million to help Napolitano, no such matching check went to Salmon. Napolitano narrowly won the race, no doubt aided by Clean Elections.
The Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit in January 2004 spearheaded by its other top litigator, Nick Dranias, against the state, alleging that the matching-funds provision was unconstitutional. In June 2011, the Supreme Court struck down that provision, significantly dismantling the program. Now, what remains of Clean Elections has been reduced to mostly voter education and outreach.
The Institute has aggressively started going after unions in Arizona, which are bankrupting the state. Bolick filed a lawsuit against the City of Phoenix last year over its practice of paying police officers “release time,” which allows officers to spend thousands of hours performing union work while getting paid by the taxpayers. The trial court has issued an injunction prohibiting the practice while the case winds its way through the legal system.
In 2010, the Goldwater Institute championed the Save Our Secret Ballot constitutional amendment, and it was subsequently voted into law in four states. That same year, the Institute sued the City of Phoenix over a $97.4 million subsidy to the real estate developer CityNorth to build a high-end retail development. Bolick argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that the subsidy violated the state constitution’s gift clause, and although the court did not disallow the incentive, it ruled that in the future there must be additional considerations when providing subsidies to private entities. CityNorth proved to be an unsuccessful venture, and today stands mostly vacant.
The Institute has not been shy about taking on powerful, moderate Republican politicians. It successfully sued Republican Tom Horne, Arizona’s Attorney General, when he tried to restrict the ability of charter schools to choose their own curriculum. Bolick stood up to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) when McCain backed the City of Glendale’s attempt to subsidize the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team with government bonds, in order to entice the team not to leave the state.
One of the Institute’s biggest lawsuits currently is against Obamacare. challenging the creation of an Independent Payment Advisory Board—the all-powerful healthcare rationing agency that is set to launch in 2014. Concurrently, the Goldwater Institute drafted the Healthcare Freedom Act, which has been adopted by 10 states and will be on the ballot in four more this fall.
The Goldwater Institute has successfully sued over government transparency. When a school board in the little town of Congress, AZ, tried to prohibit taxpayers from filing public records requests, the Institute sued on behalf of taxpayers and won, setting a precedent around the state ensuring this would never happen again. The Institute filed a lawsuit against the Arizona Corporation Commission in June 2008 challenging its efforts to require renewable-energy standards. The Institute stood up for free speech and won a lawsuit to allow voters to wear a Tea Party shirt into a polling place.
Bolick goes around the country helping similar public policy groups start litigation divisions modeled after the Goldwater Institute’s model. Local governments in Arizona now turn to the Institute first when planning new funding schemes, in order to avoid lawsuits later. While some on the right are critical of using the courts to effect policy, labeling it “judicial activism,” Bolick would argue that we don’t have a choice. These kinds of issues are ultimately being decided by the courts whether we like it or not, so why not choose the best cases now for the maximum advantage, instead of being blindsided by them later?
The number of people whose lives have been touched by the Institute keeps increasing. One mother discovered the Educational Savings Accounts advocated by the Institute, and was able to put her special needs child in a private school that could properly educate him. Parent Katherine Visser said, “It allows parents to have a choice they wouldn’t have had otherwise. It’s been a Godsend.”
The Goldwater Institute may not receive the media coverage that Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker does when he takes on the unions, nor is it a favorite juicy target of the unions, but perhaps that is why it is so successful. Respected by everyone on the right, with an impressive record of raising funding, Bolick and Olsen have developed the Institute to a level that should be emulated by right-leaning organizations everywhere.