Posted on 01/27/2010 10:49:42 AM PST by Maelstorm
Former Arizona congressman-turned-talk-radio-host J.D. Hayworth has resigned his gab-festing gig in order to challenge Sen. John McCain in the 2010 Republican primary. (Although he has not officially launched his campaign, Hayworth recently told the AP, "We will formally announce at a later time, but we're moving forward to challenge John McCain.")
In these strange political times, such an extraordinary event -- McCain was the GOP presidential nominee just 15 months ago -- seems normal to the point of predictability. So, too, were the unsurprising responses within the political firmament. Democrats were delighted, movement conservatives were energized -- and not always in secret. Already, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) has endorsed Hayworth, and numerous conservative blogs and Web sites are giddy about his candidacy. I'm not sure they should be. Get the new PD toolbar!
Hayworth has a chance to catch fire for one simple reason: Conservatives, the people most likely to vote in a GOP primary election, have long been suspicious -- and in many cases, even contemptuous -- of McCain. (I have long been critical myself of his quixotic attempts to limit free speech via McCain/Feingold.)
The issue most likely to hurt McCain in Arizona, however, is his 2007 advocacy for the unpopular Kennedy-McCain immigration legislation -- a bill many conservatives still view as offering nearly unlimited "amnesty" for illegal aliens without doing anything to secure America's borders. In fact, McCain's support of this legislation nearly cost him the GOP's presidential nomination. Few issues arouse as much emotion as this one, and while the controversial co-founder of the Minuteman movement, Chris Simcox, is also in the race, he lacks the gravitas to pose a legitimate challenge to McCain. But Hayworth, a former member of Congress, seems well positioned to exploit this issue -- and even parlay it into national exposure and fundraising success.
The real issue for me, however, is that while John McCain has many problems, there's no reason to believe Hayworth is the solution. As conservatives look to young leaders with fresh ideas, Hayworth is a step backward. For starters, he was heavily involved with former "super-lobbyist" Jack Abramoff. Although he later cooperated with federal investigators and was never found to have done anything illegal, Hayworth was the largest recipient of campaign money from the now-convicted Abramoff.
Even more disquieting from a conservative philosophical point of view, Hayworth was supportive of the Bush era's big spending -- much more so than the fiscally prudent McCain.
Two things tainted the Republican brand: Corruption and spending -- and Hayworth is tied to both of them.
Hayworth's support of Bush's big-government polices included voting for the No Child Left Behind Act; the paperwork- and red-tape-friendly (and business-unfriendly) Sarbanes-Oxley Act; the pork-laden 2005 highway bill that included the infamous "bridge to nowhere"; and, most expensive of all, a Medicare drug benefit that created more than $7 trillion in unfunded liabilities. What is more, his support for a monstrosity known as the 527 Reform Act, which was intended to close "loopholes" in McCain/Feingold, and which was arguably worse for conservatives than the original article.
So Hayworth opposed McCain/Feingold, but supported the 527 Reform Act. This is telling, because the Republican leadership supported the latter. Hayworth's backing of it, therefore, shows his willingness to bend to the will of his party's establishment. This is hardly the record of a bold and independent conservative.
My take: As conservatives seek to remake the GOP, and simultaneously oppose President Obama's liberal policies, they should worry more about getting ahead and less about getting even. The truth is, we live in a world of limited resources. As such, conservatives must shepherd their political capital. There are numerous conservatives who deserve -- and need -- the support of grassroots activists and conservative donors. But every dollar donated to a J.D. Hayworth equals one dollar that does not go to a Marco Rubio, for example.
And let's be honest: John McCain most likely won't be running for re-election six years from now. Hayworth, on the other hand, would likely be in the Senate for the next 20 years. In other words, call me when Arizona congressmen Jeff Flake or John Shadegg decide to run statewide. Until then, I can certainly live with John McCain.
Immigration policy is the defining issue of our time with enormous implications for the future of this nation and the preservation of our patrimony. Changes to our existing immigration policies should be an integral part of the solutions to our problems. Yet, rarely will you read or hear immigration policy linked to these challenges by the political and media elites.
An amnesty will destroy this country with the stroke of a pen. If passed, everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
So, JD is a Rino too? Okay, I’ll bite. What is the conspiracy between Hayworth and Heflin? And don’t tell me its about them both supporting the farm bill, or Abramoff either.
Hayworth or McCain...?
I’ll take Hayworth. Go J.D.!
So what? People talk about the Keating Five like McCain was a scumbag backroom dealer, and it’s pretty much a nothingburger. Moreover, my point that it was a Dem-run railroading remains absolutely, positively ironclad. The fact that the guy shows some all-too-rare humility about it is a plus, not an indictment.
So, you can keep doing the work of the Dems, or you can focus on McCain’s real faults. And one wonders if you’ll be posting about Hayworth and Abramov in a few years as if it’s the worst thing a congresscritter ever did...
See post 37. The Keting Five is a nothingburger, and people who continue to bring it up are misinformed or dishonorable. It’s not like McCain hasn’t got plenty of other faults.
Yes, but when you have all bad primary candidates, as in the 2008 presidential primaries, you end up with a bad candidate for the general election.
I never said JD was a RINO. I was saying that no conservative should be pushing the Keating Five nothingburger railroad job.
KMA! Your support for McCain at this point is what is truly dishonorable. For the truly misinformed, like you, see post #56.
True, I’m just saying that we need to have our eyes open.
But it's gratifying to see how the well-financed McCainiacs think FR is important.
Like I said...people who continue to push the Keating Five are either misinformed or dishonorable. And you've proved you aren't misinformed, sir.
We should also be very careful of the 'anybody but _______' syndrome as well. Desperation to get rid of someone else often means ignoring policy flaws for immediate gain.
That said, JD isn't perfect. But he's far, far better than McCain. McCain has more than wore out is welcome, and its time for him to go.
Shadegg has far more respect by the people than JD.
Especially not having the baggage.
McCain follows a scorched earth policy when it comes to attacking his "fellow" Reps, but it is kid gloves and respect when dealing with the Dems. McCain is probably still pissed that he could not choose Lieberman as his running mate. He ran the worst Presidential campaign in history. He is Johnny One-Note who has been running on his POW status ever since he entered office. McCain has a sense of entitlement. Obama squashed him like a bug.
McCain must be defeated at all costs.
GO HAYWORTH !’
This is the bottom line.
The best thing Mr. McCain did was to put Governor Sarah Palin on as his Vice Presidential Nominee. This was out of abject fear that he would lose every State in the election.
TWB
When a conservative is to the left of Bob Bennett, and is agressively pushing forward from that position...well, let's just say it doesn't look Reaganesque.
But it's gratifying to see how the well-financed McCainiacs think FR is important.
Another way you can tell if you're lost in the woods is if you read something written by a nine and a half year freeper who has posted too many criticisms of Juan McCain to count and decide that he must be on the McCain campaign's payroll, because if he wasn't, he'd agree with you.
Time to get a grip.
You need to pay atention. My first post was quite clear. JD Hayworth was cleared of any wrong doing in the Abhramoff scandal. Period. McCain was cleared of any impropriety with Keating, but publicaly criticized for poor judgment. Connecting Keating with Abramoff is a red herring at this point. Got it now? No should be defending any politico who goes off track.
So don’t confuse the issue. Your defense and support of McCain is what is dishonorable.
JD probably said something similar about the Abramoff connections. What you're basically saying is that if two guys do something unwise but legal and are smeared by Dems, we should treat one as a criminal and the other as a hero of conservatism.
Wrong answer.
And BTW, just so we're clear, when i said I wondered if you'd be talking about JD and Abramoff in six years, that was a comment about you, not JD. I have no reason to believe he did anything wrong, but I have reason to believe (because you proved it) that you have a double standard.
McCain must be defeated at all costs.
Translation: Let's play checkers. Chess is for morans.
Of course he will transform, until after the election, just to fool the rubes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.