Eight Reasons Conservatives Should Back J.D. Hayworth Over John McCain

There's nothing more unsavory than a hypocrite, which is prevalent in politics, but can we keep it to a minimum? Arlen Specter is the front runner, voting too many times in the Obama Camp, giving RINO (Republicans In Name Only) its true meaning, and finally, the turncoat switched parties. Good riddance. Now, the rubber meets the road, and we have politicians changing like a chameleon. The mentality these days seems to be, if Obama can get away with it, why not me?

We already know about the Maine Twin Girls, but you have to laugh at the audacity of people like John McCain, who now appears to be against amnesty for illegals (after he was for it), and Lindsey Graham, who appears to now be against Cap & Trade (after he was for it). Isn't is great to have confidence in our elected officials? What is more laughable than this, is the fact that McCain seems to have grown a couple, because he is now viscously attacking his Republican opponent, J.D. Hayworth like an attack dog. Where was he when he should have been attacking the real villain during the presidential campaign?

These primaries are crucial, if we are to clean out the Republican Party, get back to conservative principles, and bring in some new blood. Down with the elites, in with the common man (or woman) who think along the lines of Main Street, America. We want people who are in politics for the people, rather than themselves. A novel idea.

Adam Graham give us eight important reasons to back the relative newbie, J.D. Hayworth, over John McCain in Pajamas Media:


Eight Reasons Conservatives Should Back J.D. Hayworth Over John McCain
The effect of a McCain defeat would send a clear message to senators across the country that they do not own the offices they hold.
by Adam Graham, February 16, 2010

Former Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-Arizona) is preparing to run against Senator John McCain for the U.S. Senate in this year’s Republican primary in Arizona. Some on the right, such as Glenn Beck, don’t agree with the decision of Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to campaign for McCain in Arizona.

Conservative angst over what Sarah Palin does or doesn’t do in Arizona does little good. Palin will go there out of a sense of personal loyalty to a man who brought her to national attention. Personal loyalty can run deeper than political ideology. And while personal loyalty can be to a fault, leadership is impossible without it.

The question isn’t: “What should Sarah do?” The question is: “What should conservatives do?” Whether it’s the tea party movement or the March for Life, conservatives can move from the grassroots, and the smart conservative move is for conservatives to support J.D. Hayworth.

Here are are eight reasons why:

Reason #1: It could work.

With Arizona voters, John McCain has a real problem on his hands: a lack of popularity. Super Tuesday 2008 knocked Romney out of the primaries and saw McCain’s big wins in California and New York, but the untold story may have been Arizona. McCain won Arizona’s primary, but with only 47% of the vote. Republicans across the country were willing to resign themselves to McCain to avoid a prolonged primary process, yet when the votes were counted in his home state, the majority of Arizona primary voters had voted against McCain. There’s a strong possibility they could do so again.

Reason #2: Hayworth is a plausible senator.

One big objection to a Hayworth insurgent win is what message this sends to moderates. The best message may be to run in districts where you suit the district’s ideology. If a religious conservative runs for office in Maine they would get shellacked. Party bosses don’t cry in their imported wines about the message it sends to religious conservative activists about their place in the GOP.

Hayworth isn’t running in Rhode Island; he’s running in Arizona. It’s true Hayworth’s record is unabashedly conservative. The American Conservative Union gave him a 97.50% ACU rating, which is only half a percent more than the state’s other senator, Jon Kyl, who has a 96.96% ACU rating. Kyl beat his last opponent by 10 points in a Democratic year.

A gregarious ex-sportscaster, Hayworth is sharp, eloquent, charismatic, and quick-witted. These traits will be endearing to Arizonans and make him a strong candidate in the fall.

Reason #3: Conservatives don’t owe John McCain anything.

McCain has given conservatives few favors in the last ten years, and even bringing Sarah Palin onto the national stage wasn’t that big a favor. Palin’s charisma and political talents would have brought her to the national spotlight eventually. Running in her own right, as Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney did, she would have been able to introduce herself to the American people on her terms and develop her own policy ideas. Palin saved McCain’s campaign from losing worse. (McCain had only a single-digit lead in Alaska prior to Palin being chosen and could have lost yet another state that hadn’t gone Democratic since 1964.)

Many on the right point to McCain’s 81% American Conservative Union rating as proof that he’s not that bad, but the lifetime rating is misleading. Through 1996, McCain had an 88% conservative voting record. Since 1996, McCain only had one year with an ACU rating greater than 80% (2001, when he had 81%), and four years he has voted less than 70% conservative.

McCain spent the first part of this decade playing media favorite by frustrating the aims of the Bush administration and backing amnesty and cap and trade. Sometimes he failed, as he did with opposing the Bush tax cuts. Other times he succeeded, as he did with his efforts to stop drilling in ANWR. We can be grateful that, due to the poor economy, gas prices are beneath their $4.00 + a gallon highs from two years ago. But the price of gas would be far lower if McCain hadn’t been a cheerleader against using America’s resources. His pandering to the far left on energy is taking money out of the wallets of average Arizonans, and voters should respond by making him feel their pain.

Reason #4: Life isn’t Starship Troopers.

Some Republicans will protest, “How could we not owe McCain something?” He was a war hero, spending five years as a POW. Certainly, McCain’s military service entitles him to all the benefits the government promised him and the thanks of his countrymen. Show me the paperwork guaranteeing McCain at least five terms in the U.S. Senate for serving in the military, and I’ll drop my support for Hayworth.

You won’t find it. This isn’t Robert Heinlein’s sci-fi classic, where “the franchise is limited only to discharged veterans” along with the ability to hold political office.

Most Republicans who argue that military service trumps all are inconsistent. Conservatives didn’t run to embrace anti-war Lt. Col. Paul Hackett, nor did we support Major Tammy Duckworth in her bid for the U.S. House, and Duckworth lost part of her legs in service to her country. Didn’t Duckworth’s injury earn her at least two terms in Congress? Also, if Rasmussen releases a poll showing Governor Linda Lingle (R-Hawaii) having moved to within three points of Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) in a hypothetical match-up, will McCain supporters urge Lingle not to run? Inouye earned the Congressional Medal of Honor 65 years ago.

Why the inconsistency? Simple. Serving in the military, while honorable, doesn’t mean you have the right philosophy. It doesn’t necessarily mean you can do well in political office. Grant and Taylor were great generals but lousy presidents.

Davy Crockett’s service to his country only netted him three terms in Congress. With 28 years in the House and the Senate, McCain doesn’t have room to complain.

Reason #5: There is no divine right of Republican senators.

Whatever reason one has for a primary challenge, many Republicans gasp in horror at the thought of turning out a Republican incumbent, as if they were feudal serfs from the Middle Ages aghast at the idea of challenging the king.

This is America, where senators serve at the privilege of the voters. Serving in Congress isn’t an entitlement. Our elected officials work for us, not the other way around.

Reason #6: Put the fear of the voters back into Republican senators.

For decades, primaries have been free rides for GOP senators. The last elected Republican incumbent to lose a Senate primary was Jacob Javits. Many Republican senators are out of touch with the party’s base. Republicans have given renomination to every Republican to seek reelection in the past thirty years. Is it then any surprise that they become arrogant and dismissive?

The effect of a McCain defeat or near defeat, coupled with the potential defeat of Utah’s Senator Robert Bennett at the that state’s convention, would send a clear message to senators across the country that they do not own the offices they hold. They might then learn that they will be called to account and replaced if they are not responsive to the party base.

Reason #7: Show we learned something from Arlen Specter.

In 2004, Pennsylvania Republicans could have defeated Arlen Specter in the Republican primary, but a last-minute campaign by President Bush and Senator Rick Santorum saved Specter. He paid the party back by switching parties and handing the Democrats a short-lived 60-seat majority in 2009. Conservative voters were told Pat Toomey could not win the state. However, the Democratic nominee only got 42% of the vote, with 5% going to third-party candidates. Toomey likely could have pulled out a victory.

Six years later, some pundits are raising the same fears. Be careful, there’s a dangerous Democratic candidate around the corner. Play it safe and don’t make waves.

Several reports indicate McCain considered a party switch in 2001. Shouldn’t conservatives take away McCain’s power before he decides to stick the knife in? This would be a good year to do so, because the national climate would limit McCain’s ability to stop Republicans from holding his seat without him.

Reason #8: Our long dark night will be over.

McCain famously suspended his presidential campaign and headed to Washington to fix the economy. However, he proved a famous axiom about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

The bipartisan vote for TARP made the ending to The Dark Knight look like a happy one. At the end of the movie, the “heroes” were all compromised. Even stalwarts of fiscal conservatism who had spent years arguing that big government wasn’t the answer decided to cast their vote for a $700 billion bailout, including Rep. John Shadegg and Senator Tom Coburn.

The vote cost Republicans the Senate seat in Minnesota and forced Senator Saxby Chambliss into a runoff. Not only that, it demoralized conservatives because the vote for TARP presented government as the savior able to solve our country’s problems.

For many conservatives, the GOP’s decision to chomp down on what Rep. John Boehner colorfully called a “crap sandwich” created a perception of the party as out of touch and unprincipled. The support of John McCain as the Republican presidential candidate was key to getting reluctant Republicans on board.

A McCain defeat will change people’s perception and perhaps cause some conservatives to feel like the GOP actually gets it. McCain’s defeat will allow Republicans to move on from 2008’s betrayal of principle.


Adam Graham is a contributor at Race42012.com and host of the Truth and Hope Report podcast. His personal site is Adam's Blog.

A VICTORY OVER THE POLITICAL MACHINE

Not being a lawyer, but a citizen who knows how precious our freedom of speech is, this piece by Newt Gingrich defines why the recent Supreme Court decision is monumental. There will always be people who abuse, but the right to voice an opinion, either as an individual or as a group, should never be silenced. We see that with the Tea Party movement. Does anyone not believe that Obama would use every trick in the book to silence this 'group' because he now has all the power behind him? Tea Party groups have published material, made movies, and distributed newsletters. Are they to be silenced during a campaign under the campaign finance law?

If Wall Street makes a decision you don't like, you can always sell the stock. If your company makes a decision you don't like, you can always quit. If you take the power away from the people, the people will no longer be free. In this case, you had a small company that made a critical movie about Hillary Clinton during the campaign, but the government stepped in and told him he could not air or advertise his film. Why? Sen. Clinton was a candidate for federal office, so his film was illegal under campaign finance law.

This was a monumental Supreme Court decision -- That's my opinion. Here's Newt's from Human Events:

A Victory Over the Political Machine
by Newt Gingrich, January 27, 2010

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

These are the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in a historic Supreme Court decision that began with a man, a movie, and a message that bothered the bureaucratic Washington machine.

In January of 2008, as the Democratic presidential primaries between Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) were raging, filmmaker Dave Bossie set about advertising and distributing his 90-minute documentary "Hillary: The Movie." (Full disclosure: Callista and I host and produce movies with Dave.)

The film offered a critical look at the New York senator then vying for the presidency. But Bossie was stunned when government officials from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) told him the film couldn't be aired or even advertised. Their reason? Sen. Clinton was a candidate for federal office, so Bossie's film was illegal under campaign finance law.

Bossie's production company, Citizens United, sued, claiming its First Amendment right to free speech was being denied by the government. And the Supreme Court decision announced last week was not only a vindication of the free speech rights of all Americans, it was a significant step toward dismantling the incumbent-protecting political machine created by bureaucratic campaign finance "reforms" like McCain-Feingold.

By declaring that government has no business suppressing the political speech of groups like Citizens United, the Supreme Court has begun to make it easier for middle class candidates to take on the rich and the powerful.

The Bureaucratic, Anti-Freedom Model of Campaign Finance Was Wrong
Citizens United v. FEC is one more piece of evidence that the model of bureaucratic campaign finance reform – of government restricting the freedom of Americans to criticize politicians rather than maximizing our freedom to question our leadership – was wrong.

The Founders understood the importance of the unfettered right of citizens to complain about their government. They recognized the danger of politicians controlling or censoring the debate about themselves. That's why they wrote in the First Amendment to the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."

These words and this right have been stunningly perverted by laws like McCain-Feingold, which was explicitly a case of Congress making a law abridging our freedom of speech – of incumbent politicians attempting to censor the people's discussion of whether they should remain in office.

Government Can't Limit the Ability of Associations of Citizens to Spend in Campaigns
Citizens United was a great victory for free speech because it declared that government can't limit the right of corporations and unions – the "associations of citizens" Justice Kennedy refers to above – from spending freely to support or oppose candidates in elections.

It struck down the part of the McCain-Feingold law that censored corporate-funded political ads within 60 days of federal elections and within 30 days of primaries.

Although it left in place the prohibition on corporate donations directly to candidates and on the ability of corporations to coordinate their activities with candidates, it reversed an earlier high court ruling that allowed government to prevent corporations, nonprofits and unions from spending money independently to influence the outcome of an election.

Making it Easier for Middle Class Candidates to Take on Incumbents
The near-hysterical reaction of proponents of bureaucratic campaign finance laws such as big money fund raiser and incumbent Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) that the decision is "un-American" and "a threat to our democracy" are exactly wrong.

Laws like McCain-Feingold give incumbent politicians in Washington tremendous advantages over middle-class citizen challengers. Incumbents have literally millions of dollars worth of taxpayer-funded staff, traveling and mailing privileges.

And thanks to McCain-Feingold imposed limits on what individuals can contribute to candidates, rich politicians who can spend unlimited amounts of their own money and don't have to worry about raising money in small amounts have a tremendous advantage.

Former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) used his personal fortune from Goldman Sachs to first buy a Senate seat and then the governorship. And New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg would have been defeated by a virtual unknown last November if he hadn't been able to spend his millions.

Citizens United v. FEC doesn't threaten our democracy. It strengthens it by making it easier for middle-class candidates to compete against the wealthy and incumbents.

Real Reform Would Be Unlimited Donations Posted on the Internet
But as significant as it was, the Court's decision wasn't real campaign finance reform.

Real reform under our Constitution will only come when Americans and associations of Americans are allowed to give unlimited amounts of after-tax money to the candidates and campaigns of their choice.

Donors should be given this freedom and required to post on the Internet every night what they're spending and how they're spending. That way, voters would know who is funding whom, and how much. Armed with that knowledge, Americans can be trusted to make an informed, truly democratic choice.

Predictably, just the prospect of voters making such a free and informed choice has the Washington establishment machine up in arms.

Can We Trust the American People Mr. President? Yes, We Can.
In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, President Obama used his weekly radio address last week to pledge to work with Congress to reverse the decision and declared: "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections" (emphasis added).

This, from the president who negotiated back-room deals with special interests in order to force Democratic health care reform on the American people.

This, from a president whose massive expansion of government into the private sector has set off a stampede of lobbyists to Washington to claim their piece of the taxpayers' pie.

But even more glaring than the hypocrisy is the obvious contempt that supporters of bureaucratic campaign finance have for the American people.

Ultimately, the question comes down to one of trust. Can we trust the people, and not the government, to determine our political future? The answer, Mr. President, is a familiar one:

"Yes we can."

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich