J.D. HAYWORTH IS NO DAISY
There is a lot of talk about certain candidates being “true conservatives” and being an answer to the Washington establishment. And certain people, such as Sarah Palin, have been lambasted for not supporting some of these “true conservatives”. The assumptions have ranged from her having loyalty to the person who put her in the spotlight, to her being “establishment owned”.
But is this the whole story? Maybe, it is because she knows that sometimes the ” Consistent Conservative ” may not be so consistent at all, and that they would provide an easy opportunity for the Democrats to attack the integrity of the conservative movement for embracing these people.
And maybe, she knows that a lot of people just don’t like the opponents of those she has recently endorsed. And maybe she is actually showing more independence by not letting these “true conservatives, but not really” get away with taking advantage of the Tea Party and citizenship movement.
And maybe, just maybe, she really believes the people she did endorse are actually the best candidates. In several of the cases, The Greyfalcon agrees.
It seems that a lot of people are saying “I want to get rid of that guy in office”, but they don’t know anything about the person is trying to replace them.
J D Hayworth, has actually calls himself “The Consistent Conservative” in his adds. He is heralded as the champion of border security, one of the issues that has soured conservatives on McCain. On one talk show Hayworth said “We thank John for his service, but it is obvious that he has been in Washington too long. It time for him to come home to Arizona.”
Hayworth says “John’s been in Washington too long” and “Washington is broken” an awful lot. Before I knew more about him, that was a turn off. Those sound like stock phrases, and the first 20 times I heard him, I couldn’t find anything that he said that would make anyone want to vote for him, beside the fact that he was not John McCain.
Upon further examination, Hayworth appears to be the personification of why the Republicans lost in 2006. In 2005, he voted for the Transportation Bill that included $138 dollars in earmarks for Arizona. But it is not the fact that he voted for this, but the way the he explains it that is concerns me.
His response was that Arizona was a growing state, and that they were for construction projects that needed to be paid for. He said that the earmarks in the Tarp Bill that McCain voted for were bad because they didn’t do anything for Arizona, and that they were just to make people OK with the bailout.
In 2005 he was also reprted to have voted for 6500 earmarks for $24 million dollars. His response “we do not have line item veto.”
He is basically saying that his earmarks were better than McCain’s earmarks, because his earmarks went to a more worthy cause, for the state of Arizona.
But that is what makes an earmark an earmark. If Louisiana Mary gave that answer, Republicans would hammer her. We will not be inconsistent conservatives.
There is a lot of talk about “those Progressives” and “we can’t elect more Progressive Republicans”, and a certain talk show host that uses the term as many times as the smurfs said smurf. One of the things that characterized progressivism was its use of regulation and a vast administrative class to circumvent the limitations that the Constitution put on government power.
In American Progressivism, Ronald Pestritto writes “Through te realization of their agendas, Roosevelt and Wilson had made reform respectable. Federal regulation of numerous aspects of public life had become commonplace. Americans may have tired of their crusading zeal, but the progressive presidents and their supporters had inaugurated a new era in American government.”
Hayworth supported the 527 Reform Act, a conveniently timed effort to limit these groups when they could possibly be used to defeat him, even though it was apparent that eventually that act would further the conservatives spiral away from their principles, and even hurt the party in the coming years.
Hayworth voted for Sabes-Oxley, a bill that imposed obtrusive accounting regulations on businesses. Many firms have reported sending their work overseas because of the expenses caused by his bill.
Interestingly, in 1998 Hayworth also voted for increasing high-skill foreign work visas. When an Arizona software engineer wrote a letter telling opposing this, his response was that if he did not vote for the measure, firms would send their business overseas.
He voted for No Child Left Behind. This was one of the Bush Administration policies that the Greyfalcon most opposes, and educations on both sides of the political spectrum say this is a hinderance to them.
And off course, he was one of the five major names in the Abramoff scandal. He has been accused for receiving $100,000 from Abramoff, though he claims he only received $2,200, and that the rest of the money in question was merely the Indian tribes showing their appreciation for all the great work he had done for them.
Remember, Palin went after Republicans in Alaska for corruption. Some have said her support for McCain over this guy means she is establishment owned. That kind of in crowd mentality has led these same people to demand she supports someone who has been FAR from a Washington outsider. I believe she quietly affirmed her committment to opposing corruption in BOTH parties.
But regardless of all this and more (looks like he hooked his wife up with $100,000 in campaign money for a political services) I JUST DO NOT LIKE THIS GUY.
I don’t like his stupid smirk, and the way that he insults people when they ask him about this stuff. So much of what he says sounds to me like a much of half-ass excuses, and he sounds like a talk show host more than a candidate to run for office.
And I never hear him say, “I am sorry”, or “I showed bad judgement in getting involved with this stuff.” Hayworth’s attitude seems to be, “that’s just how we do business……… in Washington.”
And he actually got roughed up by Campbell Brown Chris Matthews, and even Rachael Maddow! Hayworth’s kind of -sort of birther stuff, and then his retract and skirm maneuver made him easy prey for them. Not a promising sign.
I am not saying that someone is wrong for voting for Hayworth over McCain, McCain has certainly lost the favor of many conservative voters. But I do reject the notion that Hayworth is such a great and principled conservative that if someone supports McCain, they are “selling-out”, and that not backing Hayworth is some betrayal of the conservative movement.
Sounds like that MTV marketed counter-culture stuff. These people are not purple haired punk rockers, they are RUNNING FOR OFFICE, FOR THE RIGHT TO GOVERN THIS NATION. I am not voting to make a statement, I am voting to get good, talented people into a position were they can stop the government’s slide into financial oblivion, and take the reigns of power without screwing up.
And I want them to realize that they work for us, and I don’t think that this Hayworth guy has done or said anything to indicate that he understands this. He demonstrated a clear sense of entitlement when he suggested that he was a Tea Party candidate, and when he used his radio show to “test the waters” for his entering the race.
I am sure the station owners loved having their business being used to reelect this guy.
It may be a matter of the Obama McCain dilemma, where conservatives choose McCain because they thought Obama would be much worse. And if one thinks McCain is a good candidate, that’s OK too.
I do agree with McCain on the Iraq war and the Surge, and I also like his pro-life stance. And I also think he has done good work on the healthcare debates, and he did not vote for the healthcare bill. Hayworth says that McCain becomes a conservative when it is election time, but his own track record on conservatism is not exactly stella. Actually, it kind of stinks.
We keep hearing how great Hayworth is on the border, but the problem is not the law, the problem is better enforcement of existing laws. Nearly every conservative I know off agrees that we cannot send 12 to 20 million people back to Mexico. I opposed the 2006 immigration bill because without the establishment of solid goals and measures to major reductions in the number of illegal crossings, the bill would have been a message that once you got over the line, you could be given amnesty.
But mass deportation efforts would require the kind of government expansion and regulation that conservatives patently oppose. Though criminal illegals should be sent out of the nation and reported to ICE, we do not need the Million Man Round Up to create more division in this nation.
I would vote for McCain over Hayworth if I lived in Arizona. Just like I voted for McCain over Obama in 2008. I disagree with his campaign finance reform, position on the Bush tax cuts and his support for a form of Cap and Trade, but I also think that he is a good man. I do not have the same feeling for Hayworth, on top of all the concrete problems with his political career.
There are a number of great grassroots candidates that are running this year, including Marc Rubio, Chuck Devore, and Allen West. They are true conservatives who deliver a clear and personal message. They are also positive and intelligent, and they do not rely on boring cliques to make their case.
I think the idea that Sarah Palin or anyone else owes it to the movement to back Hayworth marginalizes the value of their endorsement of candidates the calibre of these and other truly consistent conservatives.
And maybe, she doesn’t want to see the people who put their trust in her, and in this movement, get played for fools.
We do not agree with these sentiments and comments denigrating all Republicans and conservatives as corrupt and dishonest. But these sites show how easy it may be to use these pseudo “Consistent Conservatives” to damage the GOP brand beyond repair, and diminish the credibility of the Tea Party’s committment to the whole nation.