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.
Even Mark freakin’ Kirk voted against the Bridge to Nowhere.
McCain had the Keating Five scandal. He is pro-amnesty and pro cap and trade. He was a co-sponsor of both bills. He tried to limit political free speech. He is against drilling in ANWR. He is against making English the official language of the US. He supports candidates like Charlie Crist over conservative candidates. He wants to close Gitmo. I could on and on why this cancer must be removed from the GOP. And it will be. The timing could not be better.
Even Mark freakin’ Kirk voted against the Bridge to Nowhere.
If Hayworth is the nominee, every person on this board saying that Palin’s support of McCain proves she is a RINO will have at least six years to regret it.
Who is Matt Lewis? A McCain operative?
I read this and all I see is a lame attempt to tie Hayworth to Bush.
If you don’t think that Hayworth would be a tremendous improvement over McCain (almost anybody would be IMO) then you have a serious RINO problem.
JD is much more conservative than John McCain and would do MUCH better representing Arizona voters than McCain.
For years McCain has COMPLETELY ignored Arizona and given us a one-finger salute. Now suddenly that JD is challenging him, McCain has started to concern himself with Arizona. For McCain it is all about himself and doing whatever it takes continue being a Washington insider.
Name one thing McCain has done to help Arizona?
Sounds like the McCainics are scared to death of JD if they are posting things like this.
For every fault of JD, I will show you 50 of McCain’s.
JD will win!
You bring up legitimate points and, while we may disagree on McCain, to call you names is silly. From your posting history I see you support Rubio over Crist, Hughes, etc. For anyone to imply you are some kind of rino lover is a joke.
I agree with already posted sentiment.
If nothing else without John McCain there is no pResident Zero.
Amnesty, cap and tax, gang of 14, Keating 5... all good reasons but how can you argue his being a horrible Presidential nominee trumps any and all of that.
I don’t like McCain, but Hayworth has the face of a real Rino.
Kabar....
You get the sense that while JD may be imperfect, he has learned from the error of his ways. I do not get that feeling with John McCain, his deal and records show it.
With that in mind, JD is the slam dunk hands down choice....
Another possibility is Shadegg who has 5 years straight of 100% ACU ratings and a lifetime rating also of 97.6%. He is very well liked in Arizona.
Wipe the Kook Aide off your mouth. My God, where have you been? There is change happening, and it does not involve playing defense. This is so sappy that it looks like you are getting paid by McCain.
It's amazing to me how the FReepers who are the most opposed to Juan McCain, the ones who should know the most about him because they've been freaking out about him 24/7 for years, continue to bring up the Keating Five.
McCain was only the focus of hearings in that matter because if they did the right thing and left him out their would be four Dems and no GOP senators under investigation. The committee's cousel (Bob "I defended Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky mess" Bennett, there's a GOP operative for you) said there was insufficient evidence against McCain and John Glenn to evencontinue investigating them.
IOW, it was a Dem run railroad job.
It's amazing to me how the FReepers who are the most opposed to Juan McCain, the ones who should know the most about him because they've been freaking out about him 24/7 for years, continue to bring up the Keating Five.
McCain was only the focus of hearings in that matter because if they did the right thing and left him out their would be four Dems and no GOP senators under investigation. The committee's cousel (Bob "I defended Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky mess" Bennett, there's a GOP operative for you) said there was insufficient evidence against McCain and John Glenn to even continue investigating them.
IOW, it was a Dem run railroad job.
Good Point. I seem to remember a certain Ronald Reagan who gave a whole bunch of amnesty to illegal aliens in '86. I wonder if there is such a thing as a 100% candidate? I doubt it, but I will take J.D. over Obama lite any day.
When you consider McCain’s involvement in the Keating 5, Hayworth’s connections to Jack Abramoff is nothing but a red herring at this point. Hayworth cooperated with the feds and they found he did nothing illegal. JD is also a solid conservative on taxes.
On spending, well..... Hayworth voted for the 2003 prescription drug benefit, the big govt farm and highway bills. Hayworth supported pork-barrel earmarks. McCain opposed all that staist crappola.
I’ll still take JD over McCain.
I don't know. I'm not an Arizonan. Certainly y'all should consider that sort of thing, but it was not something I was talking about.
Some of the folks on this site are playing checkers instead of chess. You may not be one of them, but that's the reality. I want to play chess like Deep Blue and hand the Dems their heads for the next several elections.
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.