Category Archives: Elections
Citing his campaign’s pace in collecting $5 contributions, and certain that Clean Elections funding would not be received in time for the start of early balloting, State Senator Al Melvin has formally withdrawn from the race for Arizona governor, filing the required documents with the Arizona Secretary of State. He issued the following statement:
“I had planned on having more time to decide my campaign’s future, but I was alerted by the secretary of state’s office that while Maricopa County’s deadline to withdraw was June 27th, the remaining counties had their own early deadline and a decision had to be made by today. So after prayerful consideration with my wife and closest advisers and supporters, I filed the necessary documents with the secretary of state’s office to formally withdraw from the race.
This was a difficult decision, but one that I am at peace with. It was difficult because I believe so passionately about the principles we were campaigning for and because, as other candidates can attest to, you feel a tremendous responsibility to not let down your supporters and all those who have contributed time and treasure to the effort. At the same time, I am at peace with the decision because in spite of our efforts we were not going to be able to win the race, and no one who believes in our shared conservative values wants to see conservatives split the vote and allow a liberal to claim our party’s nomination.
Our cause is more important than any one person. For that reason it is time to end this particular campaign. But this is not the end of our fight for secure borders, high Arizona education standards instead of Common Core, tax relief, Texas-style tort reform, universal school vouchers, an energy policy that addresses Arizona’s long-term needs and economic health, and more. I look forward to seeing everyone on the campaign trail soon, and for years to come.”
By Jonathan Keim, National Review Online
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne is having a very bad month. Early last week, a former employee resigned from his office and complained that Horne and his senior staff were using staff and state resources to promote his reelection. The story gained some traction amid reports that one of Horne’s top advisers would resign, and that “Some staffers are seeking or plan to seek advice from private attorneys in the wake of [the] allegations.”
Then, just as that news was capturing headlines, Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk announced that she will move forward with a case concerning potential violations of campaign-finance law during Horne’s 2010 campaign. To hammer the theme home, the Arizona Public Integrity Alliance, a conservative group, is now running a TV ad (below) calling on Horne to resign, focusing on what a columnist for the Arizona Republic described as “Horne’s hit-and-run fender bender in 2012, while on a not-so-secret lunchtime rendezvous with the suspected girlfriend whom he hired to a six-figure state salary.” As the same columnist put it: “On a scale of one being a disaster and 10 being a flat-out catastrophe, last week had to weigh in at about an 11 for Attorney General Tom Horne.”
I don’t know whether these allegations are true. Horne needs to come clean as soon as possible. But the old phrase “where there is smoke, there is fire” seems inadequate to the moment, since right now Horne looks like he is the only person willing to stay in the building while it burns down. As my colleagues and I have explained before, no set of public officials have demonstrated more willingness and capacity to challenge the Obama administration’s overreach than the states’ attorneys general. Tom Horne may sympathize with that mission, but his problems are escalating at an alarming pace, compromising his ability to meaningfully engage in the fight for limited constitutional government. He should resign.
Republican Doug Ducey is leading in the polling for this summer’s GOP primary race for governor. But RINO red flags are abundant. Ducey’s political director Anson Clarkson says Sen. Ted Cruz and conservative writer Michelle Malkin caused GOP losses, labeled patriots as “racists,” helped leftist Randy Parraz take down Republican Senate President Russell Pearce and replace him with the liberal Republican Jerry Lewis. Hugh Hewitt, the center-right radio talk show host who supported Monica Wehby, an accused stalker, for U.S. Senate in Oregon, is also backing Ducey. The uncivil war within the GOP continues …
By the American Post-Gazette
It has been said that you can’t choose your family, but you can choose your friends. That’s why so many people say it is unfair to judge someone by what a family member does. On the other hand, it is also why so many people look long and hard at the advisers and staff members that elected officials hire.
When Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema hired an illegal alien who was fortunate enough to be granted deferred action through President Obama’s DACA program, she was making a point. When House Speaker John Boehner hired an advisor who led John McCain’s push for amnesty, it too sent a message.
Perhaps that is why Arizona politicos pay so much attention to the various hires made by the candidates running for Governor, and who is supporting whom at this early stage?
Recently, conservatives got some bad news from Doug Ducey’s campaign in the form of an email touting endorsements from Sal DiCiccio and Trent Franks. Don’t get us wrong, DiCiccio and Franks are great endorsements. Conservatives probably loved hearing about those two. But the email was signed by Ducey’s new Political Director Anson Clarkson. Yes, the same Anson Clarkson who ran the State Senate campaign of [RINO] Rich Crandall, the State Senate’s leading liberal Republican until he abandoned his office to take a better paying job in Wyoming. The same Anson Clarkson whose career defining moment was working with Arizona’s leading liberal and race-baiter Randy Parraz to take down Republican Senate President Russell Pearce and replace him with the liberal Republican Jerry Lewis.
The same Anson Clarkson who talks trash about “birthers”, bashes immigration hawks as “closet racists”, and feels strongly that Wendy Rogers is a nice lady with “no business running for Congress.” That could get awkward depending on who is on the GOP ticket in November.
Doug Ducey gets to hire whoever he wants, and he is going to hire those people who share his vision and will work to implement it in Arizona. It just so happens that his political director thinks that Rich Crandall and Jerry Lewis were awesome State Senators and that Michelle Malkin and Ted Cruz spew hateful rhetoric (which could get awkward depending on who is on the GOP ticket in 2016!)
Clarkson isn’t in charge of social media, phone banks, or neighborhood outreach. He is the political director. Count us among those who are concerned by this development.
Reprinted from http://arizonaprogressgazette.com/personnel-is-policy/
By Frank Antenori
I was recently invited for coffee by a close friend and fellow Republican to discuss upcoming state legislative races. Well respected in both local grass roots circles as well as the so called “GOP Establishment,” he was chosen to reach out to me in hopes of convincing me to not get involved in several key legislative primaries. However, by the time we finished our second cup of coffee, he would not only fail to convince me to stay silent, but he would instead volunteer to help me in my efforts to inform GOP voters of the threat to our state. It took a simple history lesson to change his mind.
I take you back to the 46th Legislature. In 2004, a handful of so called “pragmatic” Republicans conspired with Democrats to give then Governor Janet Napolitano a budget that would increase state spending by more than $700million, a 10% increase in spending in a year that saw little inflation (2%).
Worse yet, that budget created a $500 million budget deficit; in violation of Arizona’s Constitution which requires a balanced budget. Rightfully, fiscal conservatives were outraged at what was clearly an irresponsible budget. In response, conservatives recruited fiscally responsible primary opponents to challenge these fiscally irresponsible Republicans.
Then the “GOP Establishment” stepped in. They argued that we risked losing our legislative majorities by running more conservative candidates in the general. Even going as far as saying that even though these “pragmatic” Republicans may have strayed a bit and voted with Democrats for the big spending budget, at least they voted right on things like guns, faith and family issues. They used the old rationale of “even the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat any day.” Generally I would agree with that statement, however, it only holds true if those Republicans support the Republican platform and not the Democrat platform. In 2004, there were 39 Republicans in the House and 17 in the Senate. (In Arizona, you need only control 31 seats in the House and 16 in the Senate to maintain your majority.)
Many of the party faithful bought the establishment’s argument, held their noses and voted for the fiscally irresponsible Republicans “for the good of the Party.” Deep down they hoped these “pragmatic” Republicans would realize the error of their ways and act “more Republican” and fiscally responsible if they got re-elected. As a result, the fiscally conservative challengers were defeated and the “GOP Establishment” candidates got re-elected.
What did voting for the establishment candidate get us? Over the next few years, more and more spending occurred and the budget deficit got bigger, ballooning to over $2.2 billion. Well at least it helped us keep our majorities in the legislature right? Not exactly, in the House the GOP lost six seats and our majority declined to 33 seats; dangerously close to the 31 needed to maintain majority control.
Then in 2008, “Pragmatic Republicans” did it again. Cutting a backroom deal in the dark of night with legislative Democrats and Governor Napolitano, four House and four Senate Republicans essentially voted to put Arizona on the verge of Bankruptcy. They left the State with no money in the Rainy Day Fund and a $3 Billion budget deficit. This time conservatives had enough.
A grassroots groundswell of conservative candidates filed to run for the legislature and challenge the big spenders of both parties. Once again the “GOP Establishment” clamored about “party unity, we’re going to lose our majority if we elect conservatives in the primary, think of the big picture and don’t get hung up on a single budget vote, etc.” This time, despite the GOP establishment spending heavily on their “pragmatic” candidates, the GOP primary voters weren’t going to listen.
Fiscal conservatives won primary after primary, soundly defeating establishment candidates in several key races. Instead of lining up behind the party’s nominees, the GOP establishment instead sided with Democrats by undermining conservative candidates in the general election. Establishment lackey and so called “political consultant” Nathan Sproul even penned an open letter to voters stating “In my opinion, the Republican Nominees are not reflective of the overall electorate.” His statement was quickly picked up by Democrats and used in mailers against conservatives.
Despite the “GOP Establishment’s” efforts to torpedo our candidates, we not only kept our majorities in the State House and Senate, but increased them! Keep in mind this was 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected President. Conventional political wisdom predicted a Democrat landslide nationally and the Tea Party was still more than a year from even coming into existence. Arizona was one of only two states in the whole country that saw Republicans add seats to their legislatures. The GOP Establishment was not only WRONG, they were DEAD WRONG.
Then came 2010; “the year of the Tea Party.” Both Establishment GOP candidates as well as Democrats were steam rolled by conservatives. Republicans obtained “Super majorities” in both houses of the legislature and it immediately led to a balanced budget in Arizona, the first in over five years.
Now we’re back to 2014 and here we go again. A new bunch of so-called “Pragmatic Republicans” have again voted with state Democrats to bring Obamacare to Arizona and once again bust the state’s bank by voting for fiscally irresponsible budgets. Where there was once $1Billion in the Rainy Day fund, now there’s essentially nothing. The budget is once again structurally unbalanced and we’re looking at huge deficits again in 2016 and 2017.
So guess what the “Establishment” is saying. Yep, you guessed it: “Don’t primary them, they only voted ‘wrong’ on Obamacare and the budget, but otherwise, they’re still better than Democrats. Don’t primary them for the ‘good of the party’ and so we don’t lose our majorities.”
Well I for one am not buying it. I’m not going to let history repeat itself. These turncoat Republicans, also known as “Legistraitors,” are causing irreparable damage to our states’ fiscal and economic future and they must go. We can’t let the financial disaster of 2004-2008 happen again. Reelecting these “pragmatic” traitors to the platform will spell fiscal disaster for Arizona. Ask yourself, do you want to go through what we had to go through back in 2009-2011? Huge budget cuts, a sales tax increase, selling our Capitol? Heck no!
Among the most important purposes of civil government are to restrain evil, bring good to society, and bring order to society. On all three grounds, it is right to conclude that government should define and regulate marriage.
Marriage restrains evil by promoting sexual faithfulness between a man and a woman, by establishing a legally binding commitment for parents to care for their children, by establishing a legally binding commitment for spouses to be financially responsible for and to care for one another, and by providing a legal protection to keep women from being exploited by men who might otherwise enjoy a sexual relationship for a time and then abandon a woman and any children she may have borne.
Second, marriage brings good to society in multiple ways. It promotes social stability, economic well-being, educational, and economic benefits for children, the transmission of moral and cultural values to the next generation, and a stable social unit for interactions within society.
Third, the establishment of marriage brings order to society to the general public will know who is married and who is not. Marital status can be established as a matter of public record so that in various ways the society as a whole can honor and protect individual marriages and can know who is responsible for the care and protection and training of children, and for the care of spouses who have medical, financial or other needs. In this way, defining and regulating marriage gives stability and order to a society. It is an extremely important social good that government should encourage and protect.
Only civil government can define a standard of what constitutes a marriage for the state, nation, or whole society.
If no definition of marriage is given to an entire society, then chaos and much oppression of women and children will ensue. Without government establishment of what constitutes marriage, the result is a proliferation of children born in temporary relationships without commitment, and more children born with no one taking responsibility for their general well-being and welfare.
The worldwide consensus throughout history is that society as a whole, through its governing authorities, needs to define and regulate marriage for its citizens. The greatest cost benefit to government and society is when children are protected by a permanent, faithful, co-residential, sexual coupling of a committed, married man and woman.
Since marriage provides great benefits to society with immense value, society has an interest in protecting and encouraging marriage. The Supreme Court has frequently confirmed this, declaring in 1885 “the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman” is “the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.”
The history of marriage law in the U.S. shows that society has a strong interest in protecting and encouraging marriage between one man and one woman because of the great benefits that accrue from this institution – in multiple ways, benefits that no other relationship or institution can give.
Comparing the environment marriage provides during the pregnancy and birth of a baby with the environment of a cohabiting couple with no legal commitment attached, or to the environment provided by a temporary sexual liaison with no ongoing relationship, or to the environment provided by a homosexual couple that lacks either a mother or a father, or to the environment provided by a single mother who bears a child through in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood, it is evident the environment provided by the married heterosexual couple provides far more security for the child.
The environment is also better for the mother because marriage provides a better guarantee that the father will not abandon her to care for the child alone – including at cost to the taxpayers through government welfare programs. The environment of marriage is also better for the father because it provides strong legal and societal expectation that he will stay around and act responsibly with regard to the responsibilities formally associated with fatherhood.
All societies need babies to survive and thrive, and marriage between one man and one woman is the best environment for the birth, care, and raising of children. Children living with their own married parents attain significantly higher educational achievement. They are much more likely to enjoy a better economic standard in their adult lives and are much less likely to end up in poverty. Their physical and emotional health is better. They commit fewer crimes and experience less drug and alcohol abuse. They’ve demonstrated higher standards of integrity and moral principles.
Furthermore, children living with their own parents are less likely to experience physical abuse and are more likely to live in homes providing support, protection, and stability for them. They, in turn, are more likely to establish stable families in the next generation – requiring fewer government resources. Marital fidelity is highest among a married man and woman, resulting in the fewest STDs of any types of relational coupling. In addition, the highest rates of domestic abuse in society are among homosexuals – particularly females.
All of these factors are demonstrable through scholarly, peer-reviewed data – much of it provided by university researchers who describe their political leanings as Left.
And for all the reasons outlined above, marriage between one man and one woman is the basic building block of a stable society. It’s essential to the continuation of a healthy, stable society. It is highly beneficial for government to encourage and reward marriage between one man and one woman – through laws and policies. Policies and laws to the contrary do harm to the nation.
Homosexuals, as a whole, cannot provide the same benefits to children or society. Male homosexuals can expect a life expectancy shorted by 25-30 years. They are at a heightened risk of chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease (infectious hepatitis), fatal immune diseases including cancer, fatal rectal cancer, multiple bowel and other infectious diseases, higher rates of suicide, more drug and alcohol abuse, and adverse consequences due to risky behavior – most notably, frequent sex with hundreds, if not thousands, of anonymous sex partners.
Media in America typically represent homosexual couples as “normal” parents. But that is not an accurate portrayal of social realities. Nor is it an honest attempt at journalism, for the result is to delude society with false information. Media refuse to acknowledge that science has proved indisputably that homosexuality is not genetic, and fail to recognize the many social problems associated with homosexual relationships. The main reasons for dishonest, skewed, and false reporting by media is its collective liberal worldview, and its fear of protest by homosexual advocacy groups.
Furthermore, heterosexual marriage lasts many times longer than homosexual relationships (about 18 months. And when hetero marriages pass the 10-year mark, the divorce rate drops precipitously.
Postscript: Homosexual activists are attempting to place an initiative on the general election ballot in November of 2014 to overturn Arizona’s constitutional protection of marriage between one man and one woman. If they succeed in changing the law, everyone in Arizona loses. Additionally, the result of same-sex “marriage” means a loss constitutional freedom for Americans; same-sex “marriage” will over-rule the First Amendment’s recognition of free speech and religious freedom because to oppose same-sex “marriage” will result in punishment, job loss and marginalization for those opposed. For so many reasons, the best outcome for Arizona society is to defeat this effort.
Information cited from:
Wayne Grudem, Politics and the Bible.
Marcia Barlow, The Marriage Advantage, United Families International
Sexual Orientation, United Families International