The Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Arizona continues to get nasty, with John McCain, thought to be in trouble, piling up a huge lead over former Congressman J.D. Hayworth. Hayworth has been badly tarnished by his participation in an infomercial for a company that essentially fleeces folks, with his first response that consumers should practice “caveat emptor”. He has since apologized, but has been put under an enormous barrage from Team McCain. He has been pounding Hayworth on the earmark issue, where ole J.D. has some pretty big vulnerability. McCain has put out a fact sheet highlighting Hayworth’s record on issues.
Hayworth’s Former Colleagues In The House, Rep. John Shadegg And Former Congressman Joe Scarborough Recall Hayworth “Beating The Hell” Out Of Fiscal Conservatives Who Stood Up Against Earmark Spending. “Scarborough then recalled one episode during his time in Congress when he and Shadegg were dressed down by Hayworth and Gingrich. ‘John Shadegg and I along with about seven, eight, nine Republicans used to give Newt Gingrich hell after Newt decided he liked earmarks and liked big spending. And [Gingrich] liked teaming up with Dave Obey and attacking us, and I’m quoting Newt, as “jihadists,”’ Scarborough said. ‘So Newt called us “jihadists” and I remember our friend JD Hayworth standing up in those caucus meetings and just beating the hell out of us.’ Hayworth, Scarborough recalled, was ‘saying how dare you do this to poor Newt, blah, blah, blah, blah. And all we were trying to do was balance the budget.’ ‘Yeah, that’s right,’ Shadegg responded. ‘J.D. was on the other side of those fights from us “jihadists.”’” (Andy Barr, “John Shadegg, Joe Scarborough laugh at J.D. Hayworth,” Politico, 2/25/10)
US Senate Primary Debate_July 16 from John McCain 2010 on Vimeo.
Your entry was too good to be ignored.
I stopped replying to your entries as they, (1) were more like news reports than opinion. and my responses were ignored; like being in a ball room all alone.
To get to the point. I fully agree with your assessment. Old JD tried to scam the folks. Kinda like our last 5 state speakers.
I do wonder how the folks will vote when they realize that old John is trying to hang 11 million Democratic voters…er illegal border jumpers around their collective financial necks.
Now my news. It seems as if the folks are realizing they are being fleeced by our President. Buyer’s remorse is flooding our nation as those fooled by the Chicago politician wrapped in gift wrap is exposed.
As in the dreaded private sector, in politics “Caveat Emptor”.
A reply would be nice.
Happy Summer! My post was too good to be ignored? I love it.
As you know McCain’s position has “evolved” on immigration. He now espouses a much tougher line on immigration than when he was running interference for the Wall Street Journal editorial board. I do believe ole John is ready to commit U.S. troops to the border to seal it up. Don’t think JD is going to beat him to the right on this one anymore.
As far as the President goes he is in a bit of trouble based on polling data. And he might even lose the House in November. But is that a bad thing for him politically for 2012? Running against a do nothing House run by Republicans may be just the ticket for him. The Charles Krauthammer column provides some interesting speculation on this.
Welcome back! The place is not the same without you, and I am ready for combat.
I am familiar with all the the talking points.
Let’s begin with your labeling the Republicans as the party of “NO”.
Universal health care NO (Dismantle)
Cap and Trade NO (NO, NO and NO)
Financial Reform NO (Fix)
Obama education Reform NO Dumb down kids)
Endanger Americans NO
Insult America NO
Racism as policy NO
The American People will have choices to make
It’s up to them. I will work send him back to Chicago with his buddies.
I hope your are aware the Massachusetts Education politburo is accepting the Federal program. You will reside on the dumbing down of Methuen Youth. Congrats.
Your list looks like the talking points from the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. That list really does show the Republicans as the Party of No, because it only lists things they are against. They never say what they are for, except in the most general terms that do not deal with policy specifics. And lets face it Jules when they do talk a bit about their REAL policy preferences they quickly have to retreat, a la Ms. Angle in Nevada and Mr. Paul in Kentucky. Looks like your pal Harry Reid has just retaken the lead in Nevada because of this dynamic. Saying No may make for some good short term politics, but it does nothing to advance the country.
I look forward to a Constitutional Republic based on Democratic, Free enterprise policies.
I want none of the things that you , Deval or Obama have to offer.
So how do you propose I present a optional policy when I want none.
It is Democratic policies that is annoying you as you try to manage the Town of Methuen.
(Note, I can defend the Republicans from your charge of of causing the recession. They are not innocent, but share the blame. I assume this is your next ploy.)
It is not Republicans that keep the people of Methuen from catching a break. Our senator or representatives don’t help. Deval screws you every chance he get. (Are you ready for the next budget short fall?) Our Federal legislators offer no support.
So why is your party enjoying such a high place in your admiration?
I have always been critical of the Dems when they have it coming. But three items jump out at me with Republicans.
1) Fakery on the budget
2) Imbecility on energy
3) Foreign Policy based on hope and prayer, rather than a hard headed assessment of what is in OUR national interest.
Of course each one would require a lot of typing. And for your rejoinder that the Dems have their own failures in these areas I cannot deny the validity of some criticism. But the Republicans have been especially cynical, in my view, on these issues.
I am confused with you 3 items above. Are these Republican or Democratic faults?
Just on energy. Republicans have no policy, which means that the status quo remains. And what is the status quo? An energy policy that has placed us in the position of needing to import oil from some of the most dangerous places on earth in an ever increasing way. A total shunning of any movement towards renewables. A total live for today attitude that places ZERO premium on long range planning for our nations energy future. Whatever is the cheapest source today must be the right long term solution. Like the obsession with quarterly profit reports this short term outlook will come back to haunt us and our children in the future.