Hayworth takes his best shot at McCain in new TV ad

The Hill ^ | 7.23.10 | Sean Miller

[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 Hayworth’s best shot at closing the gap with the incumbent senator. Early voting, however, starts on July 29, which doesn’t give it much time to sink in.

The ad went up statewide Friday; it’s airing on broadcast and cable. It was produced by the Strategy Group for Media.

[pissant]

Hey, there you go!

[pissant]

Absolutely. Not to mention his repulsive leftwing Reform Institute.

[1rudeboy]

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.

[pissant]

You support the ERA too?

[1rudeboy]

[pissant shakes his cane in the air]

[pissant]

I’ll take that as a yes. Thank God the wonderful Phyllis Schlafly led the fight to kill it.

[1rudeboy]

Wrong again, old man.

[GonzoGOP]

I only whis Hayworth had done this earlier. When he was only down by 7 points hitting hard looks like just bare knuckle politics. But now the polls are showing him way down and hitting hard smacks of desperation. This needed to be said and I'm glad JD said it, but I do wish he had done so a month ago.
The GOP has to have 41 non-RINO seats in the Senate after November if they want to keep Obama stopped. Keeping the RINOs from jumping ship will be a lot easier if they know that even if they switch sides they will just get filibustered anyway. At the moment there are 5 mega RINOs in the Senate, Grahm, Collins, Snowe, Brown and McCain. There is nothing we can do about the first four, they aren't up for election. We are likely to pick up six or seven seats in November, but one, Kirk from Illinois, is also a turbo RINO and can't be counted on. Removing McCain reduces the number of RINOs by one and may make all the difference come next January.

[pissant]

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.

[1rudeboy]

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.

[pissant]

I asked you and you didn’t answer. Now I know you don’t. SO there is some discernment you have regarding “rights” and “equality” and gender bias, etc. and for what purposes an amendment to the constitution should be used for. Next thing you know, you’ll be wanting women to be forbidden from driving.

Funny, this is just like me and my opinion of the 19th (and other) amendments.

[ZULU]

John McCain deserves to be re-elected Senator as much as Jeffrey Damler deserves to be named “Chef of the Century”.

[1rudeboy]

No, it is not. I haven’t even read the text of the ERA, so I am not “discerning” or distinguishing anything. You just wish I was in order to support your argument.

[pissant]

OK. So you are ignorant about the ERA, which came within a whisker to becoming part of our constitution. All the RINOs at the time (and all the dems of course) were singing its praises.

Thank GOD for the neanderthals like Schlafly, Goldwater, and RONALD REAGAN!!

Did you know that only 8 US senators voted against it (one was a dem)? That support for the ERA was in the GOP platform? (Reagan changed that).

And did you know it has been re-introduced in Congress?

The PC claptrappers are alive and well. Just as they were in the 1970s and the early part of the last century.

[pissant]

ROFL!

[1rudeboy]

You still don't get it: you are using the ERA as a red herring. Just because I am in favor of a woman's right to vote, I am not in favor of an amendment I haven't read.

Much like being strongly in favor of the 2nd Amendment does not make me in favor of Prohibition. Your inability to recognize the above stems from your logical failure--"some Amendments are bad therefore other Amendments are bad." In your case, you feel that the 19th Amendment is bad because the 18th is bad. One has nothing to do with the other.

[longtermmemmory]

a little late to make a difference.

what could hayworth do for a ten point shift into his favor?

[longtermmemmory]

IOW

vote democrat because republicans will starve children by taking unemployment.

(just end it already, give everyone unemployment even if they have a job.)

[pissant]

I’ll try one more time - please read it slowly. Try to comprehend.

The only relationship between the 18A and 19A that I mentioned was that I used the 18A as ANOTHER example of a bad amendment. There is NO CAUSAL relationship between the two. No ‘If then therefore’ relationship; no AND or exclusive OR operators.

Just a simple example to blow away your flawed logic that since Amendments were allowed by the Founders, that future Amendments would therefore be beneficial.

Obviously, not all are. And the ERA, which nearly became one - which you are ignorant about - was just more PC claptrap, like the 19A.

[1rudeboy]

Just a simple example to blow away your flawed logic that since Amendments were allowed by the Founders, that future Amendments would therefore be beneficial.

Except for the fact that the above was never my argument, and that it is a tortuous fabrication on your part, it is an example of something. I submit, idiocy.