For weeks and weeks my email has been peppered with notes from people in Illinois along the lines of this one:
You keep talking about Pat Hughes, but what about Adam Andrzejewski? He’s a dream candidate. He’s a Rubio.
Everyone these days calls their candidate a Rubio. Guess what? Andrzejewski is a Rubio — well spoken, attractive, conservative to his core, and with a zealous band of conservative supporters.
Oh, and he strikes fear and dread into the heart of the old guard Republicans who led Illinois off the cliff into the hands of an even more corrupt Democrat Party.
Let me say one more thing about Andrzejewski that I have not said about Marco Rubio. In his uniqueness as a candidate, his story, and the sheer dread he instills in the corrupt old guard of Illinois, he is politically numinous.1
Yeah. I’ve become convinced. That is a very bold statement, but the ferver for this guy is, among desperate voters in Illinois hungering for truth, honesty, and transparency in government, overwhelming. The movement to elect Adam Andrzejewski elected is akin to a quest. And outside of Illinois, he is on very few radars. Stacey McCain has joined the bandwagon. Polish hero Lech Walesa is on board too, and going to campaign for Andrzejewski.
With a Republican and Democratic establishment tired, corrupt, and morally bankrupt in Illinois, the state is in a world of hurt. This past week, Adam Andrzejewski debated his rivals in the Republican primary and it became all against Adam. One went so far as to lecture Andrzejewski on his call for transparency saying Andrzejewski just must not know what’s going on and that’s why he wants transparency. Duh. Then there is this article from 2006. Read it. (PDF) Read it all. This guy is an American success story. He’s the type of guy we always say we want in politics, but then ignore once he enters the arena. Except this time people are not ignoring him.
The race in Illinois is exceptionally close with little time left. Adam Andrzejewski has a real, solid, tangible chance of winning. He has given hope to a disenchanted base of people — conservatives and independents — who want the best of themselves reflected in those who lead them. For those of you rushing to the dictionary, “numinous” is an adjective “suggesting the presence of a divinity” — particularly the fear, awe, and trembling. See e.g. C.S. Lewis’s The Problem of Pain. I use the word intentionally here. No, Andrzejewski is not divine, but among the political elites and the base in Illinois, he is conjuring up the same awe, dread, trembling, and passion. His presence in the race is spooking a lot of people and turning others to passionate evangelism for him.
I have to admit that if I had been sitting in the House chamber during President Obama’s State of the Union address, I would have had to fight the urge to have a Joe Wilson moment when the President unjustly criticized the Supreme Court, six of whose members were there. Why? Because the two claims President Obama made about the Court’s decision last week in the Citizens United case are categorically and undeniably false.
President Obama claimed that the Supreme Court had “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Alito seemed to shake his head and mouth the words “not true.” And well he should. The fact is that the Court overturned a federal ban on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, and in so doing, it rejected the proposition that the government can decide who gets to speak and can ban some from speaking at all.
First of all, the 100-year claim is completely wrong. In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act that banned direct contributions by corporations to federal candidates – there was no ban on independent political expenditures in the law. “Contributions” are funds given directly to candidates for their election campaigns; independent expenditures are funds spent by third parties on things like political advertisements without any coordination with the candidate.
The Tillman Act was sponsored by South Carolina Senator Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman, probably the most vicious racist to ever serve in Congress. Tillman was a Democratic segregationist who was chiefly responsible for the imposition of Jim Crow in South Carolina after the end of Reconstruction when he was governor. This federal law, that so-called “progressives” like the President are constantly praising, was intended by Tillman to hurt the Republican Party – the party of abolition and Abraham Lincoln – because many corporations contributed to the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. These corporations did not like segregation in the South – it cost them money and made it more expensive to sell their goods and services.
Congress did not ban independent political expenditures by corporations and labor unions until 1947. For three decades after the passage of that law, the Supreme Court went out of its way to avoid upholding its constitutionality, and the Court actually struck down a separate ban on independent expenditures as well as a state law prohibiting corporate expenditures on referenda. It was not until 1990 in the Austin case that the Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld a state ban on independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation (a trade association) in a case completely at odds with prior precedent. The actual electioneering communications provision at issue in the Citizens United case was part of the McCain-Feingold amendments to federal campaign finance law in 2002.
So the point is that the law the President claims has been in place for 100 years has been on the books since 1947, and the Supreme Court only issued a very odd decision twenty years ago upholding such a corporate ban in conflict with stare decisis (Quite tellingly, the government refused to defend the 1990 decision on the basis of its actual reasoning when it argued the Citizens United case). As Justice Kennedy said, “[n]o case before Austin had held that Congress could prohibit independent expenditures for political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity.” While the Supreme Court in Citizens United found that the corporate ban on independent political expenditures is unconstitutional, it did not touch the ban on direct contributions to federal candidates. That is the ban that represents “a century of law” and it remains in force today contrary to the President’s assertion.
The President’s second point about those evil foreign corporations is also totally wrong. 2 U.S.C. § 441e bans all foreign nationals from directly or indirectly contributing to a federal candidate or a political party. It also bans all foreign nationals from making any independent political expenditures – and this ban was not overturned by the Supreme Court. The term “foreign nationals” is defined to include individuals, foreign governments, foreign political parties, and corporations “organized under the laws or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.” It is simply not true that Citizens United freed foreign corporations to make independent expenditures in American elections.
Congress itself put an exemption into the law. If you are not a U.S. citizen but are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S., this ban does not apply to you. The Federal Election Commission has interpreted this provision with regard to corporations to mean that only U.S. domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations can establish political action committees, and only if those PAC’s donations and disbursements derive entirely from funds generated by the U.S. operations of the subsidiary and all decisions concerning the donations and disbursements are made by U.S. citizens or permanent residents. I was actually on the FEC as a commissioner when we considered an advisory opinion request from a Canadian company over its U.S. domestic subsidiary, and this was the rule followed by the FEC to implement federal law. Under current law, there are multiple layers of protection to prevent foreign influence on our elections.
This makes perfect sense. Foreign corporations are prohibited from participating in American elections. But their domestic subsidiaries that are American companies, employ American workers, have American officers, and pay American taxes, are able to participate in the American election process to the same extent as other U.S. companies as long as all of the money and all of the decisions are American.
The Citizens United decision did not even consider this ban on foreign nationals. So the President was completely out-of-line when he made the claim that foreign corporations would be able to spend without limit in our elections, a claim that seems to have become a talking point for critics of the Supreme Court’s decision.
The President should know better than to make these false claims. After all, he taught a voting rights class at the University of Chicago that loosely covered campaign finance law, and his new White House counsel is Bob Bauer, probably the leading Democratic campaign finance lawyer in Washington. Bauer even wrote one of the only books that exists explaining the nuts and bolts of federal campaign finance law.
The President owes Justice Alito and the other justices of the Supreme Court an apology for completely mischaracterizing their opinion, an opinion that helped restore the full protections of the First Amendment. It was a decision that upheld some of our most basic principles, principles about the freedom to engage in political speech that are incorporated into the Constitution, a document that the critics of this decision seem all to willing to ignore when its requirements don’t fit their political objectives.
We kind of figured Sarah would have something more to say about President Obama’s State of the Union speech. As you will read, she doesn’t disappoint.
Sarah was pulling no punches last night when she appeared on the Sean Hannity Show:
She was spot on. It was like Obama was lecturing America. This was the most disjointed, rambling, and frankly..hateful State of the Union speech we have ever witnessed. It was all about Obama attacking those he thought weren’t on board with his lunacy. Read what she says on Facebook.
Today at 3:17pm on Facebook
While I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.
Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.
He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”
He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.
He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.
Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.
He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.
He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.
He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending. The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.
He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.
He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?
He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.
He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?
Despite speaking for over an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?
In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it.
Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.
Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.
He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office. We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.
Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.
This is going to make the Left even crazier than normal.
Yup, the sound you hear outside your window is heads exploding in rage and frustration yet again:
Public Policy Polling 3020 Highwoods Blvd. Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: 888 621-6988 Web: www.publicpolicypolling.com Email: information@publicpolicypolling.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 26, 2010 INTERVIEWS: DEAN DEBNAM 888-621-6988 / 919-880-4888 (serious media inquiries only please, other questions can be directed to Tom Jensen) QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POLL: TOM JENSEN 919-744-6312
Fox the most trusted name in news?
Raleigh, N.C. –
A new poll asking Americans whether they trust each of the major television news operations in the country finds that the only one getting a positive review is Fox News. CNN does next best followed by NBC News, then CBS News, and finally ABC News. 49% of Americans say they trust Fox News to 37% who disagree. Predictably there is a large party split on this with 74% of Republicans but only 30% of Democrats saying they trust the right leaning network. CNN does next best because it is the second most trusted of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. 39% say they trust it compared to 41% who do not, with 59% of Democrats, 33% of independents and 23% of Republicans saying it carries credibility with them. The major networks all have the majority trust of Democrats but less than 20% from Republicans. NBC, perhaps because of the ideological bent of MSNBC, does the best among Democrats at 62%. Overall 35% of voters trust it to 44% who do not. CBS does the worst among Republicans, with 69% distrusting it. A plurality of independents express distrust of all five outlets we tested. “A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “But the media landscape has really changed and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.” PPP conducted a national survey of 1,151 registered voters on January 18
th
and 19th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-2.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify. Complete results are attached and can be found at www.publicpolicypolling.com. If you would like an interview regarding this release, please contact Dean Debnam at (888) 621-6988 or 919-880-4888. ### January 18-19, 2010
Survey of 1,151 registered voters
January 18-19, 2010
Survey of 1,151 registered voters
3020 Highwoods Blvd.Raleigh, NC 27604information@publicpolicypolling.com / 888 621-6988
3020 Highwoods Blvd.Raleigh, NC 27604information@publicpolicypolling.com / 888 621-6988
January 18-19, 2010
Survey of 1,151 registered voters
January 18-19, 2010
Survey of 1,151 registered voters
3020 Highwoods Blvd.Raleigh, NC 27604information@publicpolicypolling.com / 888 621-6988
3020 Highwoods Blvd.Raleigh, NC 27604information@publicpolicypolling.com / 888 621-6988
Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Jonathan Leake
January 28, 2010
(University of East Anglia)
Professor Phil Jones,photo at left, the unit's director, stood down while the inquiry took place.
The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.
The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.
The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.
The stolen e-mails , revealed on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, showed how the university’s Climatic Research Unit attempted to thwart requests for scientific data and other information, and suggest that senior figures at the university were involved in decisions to refuse the requests. It is not known who stole the e-mails.
Professor Phil Jones, the unit’s director, stood down while an inquiry took place. The ICO’s decision could make it difficult for him to resume his post.
Details of the breach emerged the day after John Beddington, the Chief Scientific Adviser, warned that there was an urgent need for more honesty about the uncertainty of some predictions. His intervention followed admissions from scientists that the rate of glacial melt in the Himalayas had been grossly exaggerated.
In one e-mail, Professor Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
He also told a colleague that he had persuaded the university authorities to ignore information requests under the act from people linked to a website run by climate sceptics.
A spokesman for the ICO said: “The legislation prevents us from taking any action but from looking at the emails it’s clear to us a breach has occurred.” Breaches of the act are punishable by an unlimited fine.
The complaint to the ICO was made by David Holland, a retired engineer from Northampton. He had been seeking information to support his theory that the unit broke the IPCC’s rules to discredit sceptic scientists.
In a statement, Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said: “The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information.”
He added: “The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. We will be advising the university about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information.”
Mr Holland said: “There is an apparent Catch-22 here. The prosecution has to be initiated within six months but you have to exhaust the university’s complaints procedure before the commission will look at your complaint. That process can take longer than six months.”
The university said: “The way freedom of information requests have been handled is one of the main areas being explored by Sir Muir Russell’s independent review. The findings will be made public and we will act as appropriate on its recommendations.”
University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow won U.S. college football’s highest honour 10 Dec 07. If his mother had followed her doctor’s advice when she was carrying him, he would be just another abortion statistic.
Tim’s parents, Bob and Pam Tebow, moved to the Philippines in 1985 to conduct a Christian missionary outreach. While pregnant with Tim, Pam contracted amoebic dysentery through contaminated drinking water. Her doctor told her that the medications she needed to recover would result in irreversible damage to the child she was carrying. She was advised to have an abortion.
She refused.
Most of America would look at this as a story that carries an important message. It is the kind of story that a president who ostensibly wants to reduce the number of abortions might capitalize on by inviting the Tebow and his parents to the State of the Union speech.
Instead, when Tim Tebow and his mother agreed to tell their story in an ad that’s a part of Focus on the Family’s “Celebrate Life, Celebrate Family” campaign, an ad that cost Focus on the Family about $3 million to have aired during the Super Bowl, the crap hit the fan.
To say that the abortion industry and their lobbying arm went crazy is an understatement.
“An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year – an event designed to bring Americans together,” said Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women’s Media Center in a statement.
The rather silly “Faith & Reason” blog (which comes up short on both counts) is in full cry against the idea.
Part of the alleged controversy is based on CBS’s previous policy of not allowing “issue ads” to be aired during the Super Bowl. Famously it has turned down the United Church of Christ’s ad saying that it welcomed gays and some random silliness by the anti-human faction at PETA. CBS avers it changed the policy some time ago because it was out of step with other networks.
The very fact that so many pro-abortion entities are decrying the ad is telling. They know that this message will be devastating both in the story and in an environment where 56% of all Americans and 58% of those under 29 believe abortion is morally wrong.
The irony here, of course, is that we will now be watching for this ad not because of anything Focus on the Family has done to promote it. In fact, if you visit their website you’ll see the ad is not prominently featured. We will all be watching for the ad because the abortion industry called attention to the ad and tried to get CBS to pull it and scored an own goal. Well played.
My friend Matt Lewis pens a piece today about the coming primary between John McCain and former Representative JD Hayworth. I suppose it’s a preview of how McCain plans to try to split Hayworth from his conservative base. But if this is the best that McCain can do, then he’s headed for trouble.
First off, full disclosure: I have liked JD Hayworth since my days on Capitol Hill, and I had the chance to work with him and his staff (a little) on taxes and other legislation. I like JD because he tells it like he sees it, and he embraces conservative values down to his core. I respect and admire John McCain, and I appreciate the great work he has done for conservative causes at times in his career. However, I know - and anyone who has watched McCain knows - that if he is re-elected, he will at some point in the next 6 years work against conservatives and with liberals on energy taxes, free speech restrictions, or God-knows what other liberal cause suddenly consumes him. I believe that given the choice of a genuine conservative, and a conservative-when-voters-demand-it, conservatives should back the former - JD Hayworth.
Matt does not try to argue that McCain is more conservative than Hayworth, but that Hayworth isn’t ‘a conservative hero.’ It’s worth noting that Hayworth’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 98% - compared to 81% for McCain. And if you look at McCain’s ratings from groups like the ACU and others, you’ll note that in between elections there are years when his ratings drop considerably - because McCain is a maverick who has often worked against conservatives during his years in the Senate.
There’s an allegation that Hayworth is a big spender. Really? His rating from Citizens Against Government Waste is 89% while John McCain’s is 88% - a wash. Despite his rhetoric, John McCain is not without major spending problems. Consider his response to the economic crisis.
McCain voted for the $850 billion bailout bill that contained $150 billion in special interest earmarks. He called the bill “an obscenity,” but voted for it anyway, saying it was necessary. To make matters worse, McCain also proposed spending $300 billion to buy up every bad mortgage in America, a plan worthy of Barack Obama, and one the National Review called “a full bailout for lenders” that would let “reckless types off the hook” while putting taxpayers on it.
Who’s the big spender here?
And there was John McCain just yesterday on Good Morning America talking up tax cuts, worrying that the Bush tax cuts will expire, and reminiscing about the Gipper: “If you cut people’s taxes I think it stimulates the economy. We certainly found that out with President Reagan.” This sounds suspiciously like another election year conversion.
Two points here. First, John McCain voted against both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, arguing that they were tax cuts for the rich. Second, McCain wasn’t always so fond of Reagan’s economic record. According to the Washington Post, “In December 1994, after his party swept to control of Congress on tax-cut promises, [McCain] challenged Ronald Reagan’s legacy when he warned, ‘I think we would be making a terrible mistake to go back to the ’80s, where we cut all of those taxes and all of a sudden now we’ve got a debt that we’ve got to pay on an annual basis that is bigger than the amount that we spend on defense.’”
Does that sound like a supply-sider to you?
Matt says that that Hayworth won’t buck his leadership because he supported the 527 Reform Act along with 208 of his Republican colleagues (just 20 voted “No”). (Let’s first note that there would have been no 527 Reform Bill if not for McCain-Feingold.) But how can it credibly be argued that Hayworth is too likely to go along with leadership in violation of conservative principle, when Hayworth was more responsible than anyone in Congress for defeating George Bush’s amnesty proposal?
No one in Congress did more to derail the amnesry than Hayworth - and he paid a price for his opposition. It is worth noting that when Hayworth publicly came out against McCain’s amnesty plan, McCain’s office responded by threatening to badmouth Hayworth in the media over Jack Abramoff. He could have folded, but he didn’t and all conservatives owe him a debt of gratitude for doing so much to defeat that effort.
And regarding Abramoff, Matt’s facts are off. First, it is simply not true that Hayworth was “heavily involved” with Abramoff; he certainly was less involved with Abramoff than McCain was with Charles Keating. And it is demonstrably untrue that he was the “largest recipient of campaign money from Abramoff.” That’s simply a phony Democratic talking point.
Hayworth has said he never had a meeting with Jack Abramoff. I’ve never seen an argument to the contrary. And Abramoff’s contributions to Hayworth’s campaign and PAC totalled $2,250 - nothing after 1999.
To me, the central question Arizona primary voters must decide is who is going to represent them better in the Senate for the next 6 years. Do they want to elect someone with a strong record of adherence to conservative values, or do they want to elect someone who seems to have been an adversary as often as he has an ally? As I pointed out earlier, Arizona conservatives who support John McCain know that if he is re-elected, they will regret their vote sometime in the next 6 years. Will it be because of cap-and-trade, or amnesty, or taxes, or Guantanamo Bay, or terrorist interrogation, or - who knows - traditional marriage?
Do Arizona conservative really want to play Charlie Brown, and fall for Lucy and the football… again?
