Congressional Endorsements

Sonoran Alliance has put our congressional endorsements online. Please click here or on the 2008 Primary Candidate Endorsements on the right column.

Congressional District 1
Sydney Hay – ENDORSED. All other supposed conservatives are a day late and a dollar short.

Congressional District 5
David Schweikert – ENDORSED.

Laura Knaperek and Mark Anderson have a conservative record but Schweikert has the edge in effort, money, and best chance to beat the Democrat.

Susan Bitter Smith was not able to support life on the CAP survey. This combined with her past affiliation with WISH List takes her out of the running for us. Ogsbury has been endorsed by Kolbe. If Tim Bee is too conservative for Kolbe then Ogsbury must be pretty liberal.

Congressional District 6
Jeff Flake – ENDORSED. We are not happy with his stand on illegal immigration but he is conservative on most other issues. This is not the year to fuss with an otherwise safe seat.

Congressional District 7
Gene Chewning – ENDORSED. Chewning is a solid conservative. His primary opponent is a complete nut, even by our standards.

Districts 2, 3, and 8 are uncontested in the primary but we support Trent Franks, John Shadegg, and Tim Bee.


Comments

  1. I’d be interested to hear your calculus on how Scheikert represents the “best chance to win” v. Harry. There’s too much baggage, and the D’s will start hammering away on it around Aug.25. We’ll see if this turns into a real campaign and someone does some contrast with Schweikert on fiscal responsibility….

  2. This race comes down to really one thing for conservatives – anyone but Bitter-Smith. She is not just a liberal, but a liberal who is willing to say anything to try and hide her record. You have to admire the chutzpah of a pro-abort, union backed liberal blatantly trading on Reagan’s image to try and fool voters.

    BTW, AZ1912, everyone knows you a nothing but a shill for Gutter-Smith.

  3. Laura Knaperek and Mark Anderson have a conservative record but Schweikert has the edge in effort, money, and best chance to beat the Democrat.
    —————————————————-

    You can not be serious. David leads in money only. Laura Knaperek is a tireless worker and she is our best chance to beat Harry Mitchell.

    David was legislator over 10 years ago for just 2 terms. He than made a bad decision and ran for Congress and finished a distant last. It wasn’t even close. After that he spent his time hiking. As treasurer, well you all know the problems there.

    Laura Knaperek on the other hand has the most local political endorsements in the race. She actually has all of them, minus Sheriff Joe(he endorses Bitter_Smuth). Even Mark Killian, who served as Speaker when David was in the State House endorses Laura. Don Stapley, etc, etc.

    Please, SA, stop with your blatant bias towards Dave. It is getting old real fast

  4. In defense of Sonoran Alliance about the “bias towards Dave”, isn’t endorsement inherently biased? I mean, what are they supposed to say:

    “Hey, Knaperek, Anderson, and Schwikert… They’re all awesome! It’s “Everyone Gets a Trophy” Day here at Sonoran Alliance!”.

    Their politics are not mine, but kudos to Sonoran Alliance for having the guts to put some punctutation on their politics.

  5. Klute,

    I agree, SA should endorse everyone!! Or in the alternative, I think the candidate whose supporter is most delusional about their chances should at least get an honorable mention. Take Chris for example. I like Laura, but she has very little money and not much of a track record winning races – but hey, she does have Mark Killian’s endorsement, so at least she’s got that going for her. SA should perhaps give a second endorsement or maybe even a third – SBS has Reagan all over her ad, that should count for something. Ogsbury claims to have knocked on 16,000 doors – that should get him some kudos, if not an actual endorsement from SA. Mark Anderson? He’s a nice guy and a good conservative. Where’s the love SA? You can’t be taken seriously as a blog if you don’t make a complete mockery of your endorsements.

  6. It is nice to see that Laura has so many endorsements. However, David has many more. Try the over 1,500 individual contributors that have endorsed his campaign by giving freely a portion of their savings. Say what you want about former legislators, David has the real endorsements.

  7. CraigsList says

    What do you guys honestly think about Ogsbury? I think SA took a cheap shot calling him a liberal, but as has been mentioned – this is a Schweikert blog. Outside of all the cattish things that are said on these blogs (which I hope people can steer clear of this thread) I think the fact that the man has knocked on 16,000 doors could be a difference maker in the race. 1-on-1 voter contact is the name of the game. I mean, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking people are going to vote in droves in this primary. On top of that I don’t give any of the Republicans in this race much credit in the form of name ID (except some negatives from 2000 with SBS). Any thoughts?

  8. AZpublius says

    I don’t mind endorsements, but the SA rationale on this and ACC races seems really thin. Guilt (or innocence) by association, adherence to certain litmus test issues, and a little blogger “conventional wisdom” thrown in. Both Schweikert and Knaparak had recent “conservative conversions” — that’s a plus for me but I doubt SA would like those lapses in their conservative fidelity. My problem is, I like all of the R candidates personally (except, probably, SBS). Each has strengths and flaws. I think Ogsbury has a clearer idea than the others about what the job actually entails, for what that may be worth.

  9. IdRatherBeFlying says

    I don’t see how SA can say a Kolbe endorsement paints Ogsbury as liberal and fail to mention that Schweikert was endorsed by the AFL-CIO twice (A little revelation that came courtesy of SA’s bloggers by the way). Ogsbury seems like a good guy to me and as far as I’m concerned he is nuturing the image of what could become viewed as a ledgendary work ethic. Not to mention his oft overlooked high cash on hand totals. Knaperek and Anderson definately have good conservative credentials but I just don’t get that congressional contender feeling from them like I do with Schweikert, Ogsbury, and SBS.

  10. Azpublius,

    It’s actually Ogsbury who had the “conservative conversion”. This guy was an earmark lobbyist – and all that entails – IE knowledge of how to work the system for pork. I mean, come on. Was he giving campaign donations to democrat appropriations committee members because he agreed with their policies?

    Now whatever you may think of our current GOP delegation – they are for the most part ardently against pork. Ogsbury was exploiting the system as a lobbyist. What do you think he was doing working for Bob Livingston? Are we to believe that now he has seen the light? Knaperek and Schweikert signed the CAGW pledge to reform the earmark system – did Ogsbury?

    Look, I admire his attempt to bootstrap his background as a staffer into a cogent argument to vote for him. But it kind of strains incredulity for voters to equate experience as a one of the most insiders on one of most insider of committees as something conservative. Most conservative members of Congress will tell you that the approps committee is a cesspool of wasteful spending and always has been – even during the mid-90’s where there were fights between House leadership and approps cardinals over cutting spending.

    Why do you think Flake had no chance whatsoever of getting on the committee – he wouldn’t play ball.

  11. If by a clearer idea of what the job entails is overstating your accomplishments… (ie walking 19k doors) then he’s your guy. Let’s be real here… If Ogsbury truely did walk that many doors, his tan would rival that of George Hamilton.

    The fact of the matter is Ogs and SBS are both trying to invoke the message of yester-year. Ogsbury had no more effect on the Contract with America than Susan did with the Reagan Revolution. Both are lobbyists trying to hide the fact that their professions are part of the problem.

    Anderson, Knaperek and Schweikert all have their conservative credentials in place… Stop trying to include the RINO’s in this race…

  12. I’m a friend and supporter of Jim’s and I know he’s been out there walking 4-5 hours a day since August 2007. The guy has lost probably 30 pounds and while he doesn’t have a George Hamilton tan I’m sure he’ll make a good joke about that comment.

    The lobbying thing is a double edged sword because it was a great buzzword for the Dems in 2006. The truth is Jim he was out there representing Arizona interests and cities (like our military installations) and I’d be damned upset if somebody wasn’t out there protecting those people. Call it what you want but when that financial pie we all drop money into is split up why wouldn’t you want Arizona to get their cut. I’d rather pay to save an AZ military base than fund some bridge in Alaska.

    And if we’re going to get all anti-lobbyist, don’t forget to include Knaperek who was registered as one and I wouldn’t be surprised if Schweikert had one or two representing the County Treasurer’s Office. That leaves us with only Mark Anderson to take on Mr. Mitchell.

  13. Keen Observer says

    To see how they all answered the Center for Arizona Policy survey go to http://www.SmartVoteAz.org

  14. DD,

    Isn’t that a bit of revisionist history? His client list is easily obtainable on line and he was what he was – an earmark lobbyist, or someone paid to get the client whether it was a city, corporation, defense contractor etc…a piece of the federal pie. Now, I am not saying he was doing anything wrong. But it was what it was. Saying Arizona deserves their cut is a weak argument because its the same one that all of the big pork barrel spenders in Congress use to justify their actions. Apparently, Arizona voters don’t seem to have a problem with Flake or McCain – who don’t seek earmarks. As for representing AZ interests, thats really only telling part of the story. His client list has many entities on it who do not have any tangible connection to the state.

    As for Knaperek, I believe she was a lobbyist for a conservative group pushing pro-family policies, not exactly the same as trying to get tax dollars for your clients.

    But then again I doubt Ogsbury is big on those issues because Ogsbury stands out as the only GOP candidate on the CAP survey opposed to a federal amendment protecting traditional marriage – I guess, that was the price to pay for the Kolbe endorsement.

  15. I just don’t think you can sit there and bash lobbyists while at the same time defending one. Everyone in this race, with the possible exception of Anderson, is somehow tied to that term and any logical person would then dismiss that argument. You can’t say “oh he was a bad lobbyist and she was a good lobbyist” – and I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with that profession. Everyone’s interests should be represented at whatever level. And where would you propose our tax dollars go anyway because we’re still paying them. You can say earmark, earmark, earmark (uhh…earmark bad) to fire people up as much as you want but the CD5 congressman is elected to represent my interests. And I’m interested in Arizona interests just like Jim.

    And for the marriage thing – anyone tripping over the competition to say they would ammend our Constitution to get votes is just pandering. It seems like there are always a few loud voices every year wanting to throw another ammendment on the Constitution and when it doesn’t pan out they pick a new hot-button issue to push. You don’t hear much about flag buring anymore…odd. There are bigger issues on the country’s plate than the current state of our governing documents. Everyone in this race should stop trying to out-Republican the other on social issues while Harry Mitchell keeps letting defecits grow and gas prices to rise.

  16. klute and tim- You guys are ridiculous. I don’t want SA to endorse LK nor would I except them to endorse everyone. All I am pointing out is that it is no surprise that they chose to endorse Schweikert. I mean this sight endorsing him is like the AZ Republic endorsing Harry Mitchell in the General. Well, duh of course they will.
    The thing that gets me is that SA has the audacity to say that JO is liberal because Kolbe endorses him, but they ignore the fact that DS was endorsed by the AFL-CIO. SA’s golden boy served 2 forgettable terms in the House, loses in a Congressional race he had no business being in, sells some houses and now is the greatest thing since sliced bread. SA was mistaken for not doing their research or they just don’t care enough to do so. DS and the CFG’s money seem to be the safe pick right now, but don’t be surprised when they eat crow in September. Never bet against a true conservative leader that has years of tireless service under her belt. Laura Knaperek has the name recognition and the legislative prowess to be a very effective law maker for CD5. Look at her legislation. Look at her history of helping the community. Look to Laura Knaperek to help balance the budget. She allready did it as the budget chair in the State House. She took over a budget w/ a 1 billion dollar deficit and was able to balance it w/o raising taxes. To be able to pull that off takes legislative experience, expertise and the diplomatic skills and leadership to get the rest of the “body” o board.
    SA, Klute and Tim- I challenge you guys to do some research, truly study the candidates records, and than do the only next logical step and vote for Laura Knaperek. You will see that she actually has policy and votes to back her positions. Not just the same old rhetoric.

  17. Chris,

    I can’t speak for Tim or Klute, and for that matter, I can’t say I have really studied the records. But one question for you. If Knaperek is such a great conservative, then why is she in ATR’s “Hall of Shame” for breaking her pledge never to vote to raise taxes?

    Mark

  18. Mark, just cuz you lost, you should get over it.

  19. Lost what? I’ve never run for anything. You still haven’t answered my question. If Knaperek is so conservative, why the inclusion in ATR’s Hall of Shame?

  20. Just Win Baby says

    Who said that Schweikert finished “a distant last” when he ran for Congress last time? I thought he finished second. Somebody isn’t telling the truth!

  21. roger maris says

    Chris,

    You make an excellent point when you talk about Laura’s legislative experience… all the while completely discounting your opinion as just another Knaperek Shrill sucking on sour grapes. You cannot talk up Laura’s experience while discount Schweikert’s.

    Fact… While Schweikert was in the LEADERSHIP of the LEGISLATURE, he to balanced the budget, ushered in ethics reforms, all the while doing it in under a 100 day legislative session and oh…. By the way he CUT TAXES not just simply got by without raising them…

    VIVA KNAPEREK ?????

  22. I am not true GOP, but I do habla espanol y si, !!Que Viva Knaperek!!

    Okay, so I realize that you are all political insiders. I probably do not need to mention this but, I will. Laura Knaperek championed the largest income tax cut in Arizona’s history. There is no denying that…..Here is what I found researching the truth…

    For 10 years Laura Knaperek represented District 27 and later District 17 in the State Legislature. While in the Legislature, whether ensuring that Arizonans kept more of their hard-earned dollars, or working to increase educational opportunities for kids, Laura’s focus was on making Arizona a better place to raise a family, start a business or go to school. Laura burnished her credentials as a fiscal conservative in her legislative career, chairing the House Appropriations Committee and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. Laura shepherded a $390 million income tax reduction through the Legislature in 2006 to lessen the tax burden on working families and small businesses. It was the largest income tax rate reduction in the state’s history.

    That is the truth folks. Find it. It is out there.

  23. Roger Maris’s post – and oh…. By the way he CUT TAXES not just simply got by without raising them…

    VIVA KNAPEREK ?????
    —————————————————-

    Roger Maris.. Ya I had an answer to your poor ending. Reserch, research and research even more before you try that weak stuff on me..I will await your response.

  24. You guys all remember that fellow that was going to jump form the Senate building last week? I have it on good authority he was a Club For Growth member who had blindly sent money to David Schweikery…only to get a peek at his record AFTER the check had been cashed. The Horror! The Horror!

  25. Roger…. You called me out. I answered. I am waiting for your response…..

  26. roger maris says

    OK Chris…

    Let’s assume for arguments sake that Laura was single-handly responsible for a $390 million dollar tax reduction in 2006… Then how did she lose re-election in …06?

    At best you are overstating her case… and at worse you are overstating her case and she can’t run a successful campaign.

    I am now done with this echo chamber… respond if you must.

  27. What, no endorsement in Congressional District 4?

    Seriously, guys, I filed pretty much as a joke hoping that at least some non-nut conservative Republican would at least file as a write-in candidate as I did. There’s not a serious candidate in this race — I’m obviously not, and as for Don Karg, I think he, like the person in Congressional District 7, is a nut even by your standards.

    I really fail to understand why the Republican party can’t find someone representative of the base of the party to run for every Congressional district seat.

    Some of you who comment on blogs obviously have strong opinions, and even as a hopeless candidate in a district stacked against you, you have the chance to express your opinions. Just by filing as a write-in candidate (I’d be surprised if I break into double digits in votes), I’ve gotten questionnaires from lots of groups: right to life, right to work, gun rights, Project Vote Smart, immigration issues groups, Armenian-Americans, etc.

    You really would be doing your party and your country a service by running a serious candidate in the Fourth C.D. in 2010.

    That your party will have Don Karg as a congressional nominee for the third time is an embarrassment. I am happy, at least, that we have two Democrats running in a primary in an equally hopeless race in the Sixth C.D.

    Had I been nominated and, in an event I cannot even imagine, elected, I would have voted with the Republicans to organize the House, for John Bohner for Speaker (or whomever the caucus voted to support).

    I really think Republicans should emulate Democrats who nominate and sometimes win running candidates in the South who are not really in tune with the liberal tone of the national party.

    In the majority-Latino C.D.’s, I’m sure you can find a fairly conservative Latino Republican who might be interested in running. It might be hopeless, but putting a Don Karg forward as the representative of your brand sends a really, really bad signal.

  28. William Crum says

    It is amasing that you would endorse someone who puts corporation profits before the citizens of CD2. Do I have to tell you who that is? I thought a conservative care about people. I guess I was wrong because TF doesn’t care about people.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Sonoran Alliance: Congressional District 7 Gene Chewning – ENDORSED. Chewning is a solid conservative. His primary […]

  2. […] Things are really heating up in the CD-5 race as Susan “Gutter”-Smith is back and living up to her mud-slinging name. Apparently, the Bitter-Smith campaign sent out a hit piece today loaded with false claims about David’s Schweikert’s record. (Yes, SA did endorse David Schweikert.) […]

Leave a Reply