Skip to comments.Hayworth takes his best shot at McCain in new TV ad
Posted on 07/23/2010 11:02:16 AM PDT by pissant
Arizona Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth (R) launched his most aggressive attack of the primary campaign against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) Friday.
The former congressman released his second TV ad of the race, which accuses McCain of supporting an amnesty bill for undocumented U.S. residents.
The ad features footage of McCain and President Obama talking about the effort to get immigration reform through the Senate.
I helped author with Senator Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform and fought for it twice, McCain says in the footage. It then transitions to Obama saying, I stood with Ted Kennedy and John McCain and took on this tough issue.
With immigration overshadowing the primary race, this ad is probably Hayworths best shot at closing the gap with the incumbent senator. Early voting, however, starts on July 29, which doesnt give it much time to sink in.
The ad went up statewide Friday; its airing on broadcast and cable. It was produced by the Strategy Group for Media.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Ya think JD was keeping his powder dry for a time like this?
Why did you tie Palin in with the amnesty?
She was quietly governing Alaska when that went down.
When is the primary in Arizona?
Because she was spouting the same nonsense during their campaign together. Still is
Why did you tie Palin in with the amnesty?
Because he’s pissant, he can’t help it. His soul goal in life is to destroy everyone who’s last name is not Hunter.
I have long advocated that Conservative Republicans climb in the RAT/RINO sewer and fight them using their words, their arrogance, and their deeds against them.
Nice guys come in last and We The People suffer the consequences.
That’s it MENSA! That’s why I’m promoting at least 5 guys to run for president.
John McCain—>Sarah Palin—>[...]—>Kevin Bacon
Orly Taitz is not a guy.
Unless the last name is Thatcher, slim chance I’d be pushing a chick for prez.
No need to be rational about it, right?
Since I don’t think they should even be able to vote, what makes you think I’d want one as CIC.
We vote on August 24, 2010. This negative advertising is getting soooooo very old.
They shouldn’t be allowed to leave the house without a male escort, either!
Yes, that’s what the Founders thought too, huh?
LOL! And just like always, he starts calling people names. So predictable!
Do you have that follow up on that FBI investigation of Hunter you were telling us about yet?
The Founders were smart enough to provide for amendment. What’s your excuse?
Funny. that was dead nuts on advertising. Only negative because Juan is an amnesty pimp.
Just wait til this fall when the Congressional Democrat Desperation Campaign is in full-tilt slime mode
How’d that prohibition thingee work out. Or the income tax. Hell, it wouldn’t surprise me to find out you were pimping for the ERA to pass into our constitution.
there really are no more than six degrees to Kevin Bacon here.. John McCain to Sarah Palin... Sarah Palin to Oprah Winfrey (the interview)... Oprah Winfrey to Whoopi Goldberg (The Color Purple)... Whoopi Goldberg to Demi Moore (Ghost) and Demi Moore to Kevin Bacon (A Few Good Men)... i'm sure there are other routes... maybe even shorter ones...
McCain addresses the racist La Raza
Only a moron would surmise I implied all were bad. It’s called examples - examples that show Amendments are NOT necessarily positive. But since you asked, the 16-19th, 23rd, and the 26th
Hey, just pointing out the failure in your logic: “The Founders are infallible, except when they are not.”
Who said they were infallible? Your logic was “if you don’t want women to vote you must be in favor of Sharia like laws”. A simple example of an enlightened people in an enlightened age showed your idiocy.
Actually no. Watch Glenn Beck and you may learn something. It may not soak in, but that is your responsibility. You could learn when women's right to vote was lost and why.
Glenn Beck’s take on history is shaky, to say the least.
"Women shouldn't vote because the 18th Amendment was a mistake. Besides, the Founders didn't want the Constitution to be amended. Sometimes."
Oh, and can women vote under Sharia law? I’ve never bothered to check.
Your logic is non-existent.
Me: Repeal the 18th
You: You must want sharia
Me: Did the Founders practice sharia
You: They allowed amendments
Me: Not all amendments positive (with examples)
An a quick check indicates to me that Sharia law does not allow women to vote. Do you have any other opinions about how to make women second-class citizens? Should they be allowed to own property, for example? How about enter into contracts?
When you tie your support for Hayworth to a hatred and dismissal of Palin, you alienate people you shouldn’t want to alienate.
Just a word of advice.
McCain seems to be doing a huge flip-flop from supporting a form of amnesty a few years ago to being tough on illegal immigration now. Hayworth can't let him get away with it.
What did the 19th amendment have to do with those subjects? Answer: Nothing.
What did my giving an example of a time before the 19A when America functioned just fine have to do with the validity of the amendment process to the constitution? Answer: Nothing.
And what does providing other examples of stupid amendments have to do with the Founders, as if they were some how responsible for future generations’ good or bad choices? Answer: Nothing
i”ll admit I am no longer a chick, but I am a pretty good hen. And I certainly vote FOR my country. Actually, I seriously think that where we went wrong was when we no longer required a voter to be a land owner.
When you tie your support or non-support of Hayworth based on anyone else’s opinion, whether mine or Palin’s, instead of figgering it out yourself, you should re-examine your life.
Hey, there you go!
Absolutely. Not to mention his repulsive leftwing Reform Institute.
I wasn’t alive in 1920 (although you act as if you were), but I’m not too sure that “America functioned just fine” before then. That’s merely recognizing that the problems America faced during that period cannot be swept under a rug, especially by some proto-Neanderthal who doesn’t think that women should be allowed to vote.
You support the ERA too?
[pissant shakes his cane in the air]
I’ll take that as a yes. Thank God the wonderful Phyllis Schlafly led the fight to kill it.
Wrong again, old man.
Oh, so you don’t support the ERA? Why you are an unelightened neanderthal not wanting women’s equality etched into the constitution. Hells bells, even such GOP luminaries as Howard Baker and Dick Nixon. It had a real shot at passing too. But Schlafly and a few neanderthals lobbied very successfully, to the point where even some states that initially passed it rescinded it.
That’s what funny about you: I remind you that the Founders allowed for constitutional amendments, and you think that makes me favor the ERA. Your brain is logic-free.
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.