Archive for February, 2012

As expected, Romney coasted to a solid 47-26 win in Arizona, and topped Rick Santorum in Michigan 41-38, which puts him in the driver’s seat to lock up the nomination next week on Super Tuesday. At this point, Newt Gingrich (who came in third in Arizona and fourth in Michigan) should drop out, something that he really should have done weeks ago.

As I wrote back in January, Romney is well-positioned to secure the nomination. Last week, I wrote that Romney was going to win Arizona by double digits and also win Michigan.

Romney has proven his ability to win when it matters, and Santorum should join with Gingrich and drop out, conceding the nomination to Romney, so we can move on as a party.

Super Tuesday next week will solidify Romney’s status as the Republican nominee, and for either Gingrich or Santorum to stay in the race only wastes resources that could be used to beat President Obama in November.

You know that an argument is hitting pretty close to home when the Left starts to whine about a criticism of Obama.

A group called the American Future Fund is running the ad below. The reaction from the Left is amusing because they are so used to being able to get away with tying Republicans to Wall Street, that they don’t know how to handle the truth that Obama’s Wall Street ties are deeper than Bush’s ever were.

Whenever two Republicans face off in a very Republican district, it always comes down to “who is the most conservative.”

When I was John Shadegg’s campaign manager in his first race in 1994, the candidate who was the presumptive nominee was former Scottsdale City Councilman and former Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Jim Bruner.  Bruner is a successful guy and had served honorably in his positions.  He was a classic establishment Republican, generally conservative, but willing to use taxpayer dollars to fund things like a baseball stadium.

The central issue in Shadegg’s campaign against Bruner was that he cast the deciding vote to impose a temporary tax on residents of Maricopa County to fund the construction of what became Bank One Ballpark – or BOB – and is now known as Chase Field.  It was a huge gift to Jerry Colangelo who was trying to get a baseball franchise to Phoenix.

Shadegg’s other main opponent in the primary that year was Trent Franks, who at the time was a former one-term state legislator.  Franks positioned himself as the “true” conservative in the race, primarily touting support from social conservatives in the district.

Shadegg obviously won that race, but then after 2001 redistricting, Franks ran and won in a new district.  For eight years, Shadegg and Franks served in Congress together, which gives us an interesting test of who was more conservative.

According to National Journal Rankings, they tied for the most conservative Member of Congress twice, and in the other years, Franks ranked about 5 points more conservative on average.  In that time, Shadegg and Franks were both in the top 3% of the most conservative Members of Congress.

So we can see that when Shadegg and Franks were battling over the “true conservative” label in 1994 they both ended up in about the same place.

As an aside, given that Salmon is running for Congress again, I compared Salmon and Shadegg in the 6 years they served together.  Over the six years, Shadegg was on average 7 points more conservative than Salmon, but if you took the last three years of Salmon’s tenure, Shadegg was on average 14 points more conservative than Salmon.

Now to the main point.

This is very instructive for voters in the newly drawn Congressional District 6 and the race between Ben Quayle and David Schweikert.  The latest National Journal rankings show that Ben Quayle is, in practice, more conservative than David Schweikert.  And it’s not even close.

Check out the rankings.  It scores how conservative members are on economic issues, social issues and foreign policy issues, and the overall rank in Congress.

                                     Economic        Social                 Foreign Policy            Score   Rank

Quayle                        90                   83                              91                                94            1

Schweikert                 75                   69                               91                               81       66

Gosar                          73                   69                               91                               79.8    76

Flake                           49                   83                              91                               78.7    91

Franks                        78                   74                             70                               76.2    109

Qualye isn’t just the most conservative member of the Arizona delegation, he’s the most conservative by a long shot.  He scores 13 points higher than Schweikert who scores 1.2 points better than Gosar, 2.3 points better than Flake and 3.8 points better than Franks.  Quayle’s the most conservative walking away.

This is the kind of stuff that drives folks like Rob Haney crazy.  No matter how many times he called Shadegg a “RINO” over the years, it just didn’t stick because Shadegg was demonstrably conservative.  And, Haney and his cohort’s heads are now exploding because their chosen candidate, Schweikert, is demonstrably LESS conservative than Quayle.

Damn those pesky things like facts.

Prediction: Romney will win Arizona by double digits and also win Michigan next Tuesday.  That will give him momentum going into Super Tuesday in which he will win more delegates than Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich and continue to lead the delegate count on his way to the Republican nomination.

Here is my problem with Rick Santorum, and it’s personal.  I took vacation time in 2004 to work on Pat Toomey’s Senate campaign against Sen. Arlen Specter.  Rick Santorum, to the surprise of many conservatives, endorsed and cut ads for Specter, as did President George W. Bush.  The argument at the time from the White House was that if Specter was the Republican nominee, Bush would be able to win Pennsylvania.  The counter argument was that if Specter was the nominee, the base Republican voters in Pennsylvania would be unmotivated to turnout and vote.

As a result of Santorum endorsing Specter, Specter won the primary in 2004 by one vote per precinct over Toomey and then Bush went on to lose Pennsylvania to Kerry in the General Election.

I can’t forget Santorum supporting Specter, who not only voted counter to Bush in the following years, but eventually switched to Democrat and was the deciding vote on Obama’s health care bill.

That’s unforgivable.

Questions continue to mount regarding what Sheriff Babeu and his attorney Chris DeRose did and said in their attempts to keep Babeu’s relationship with a Mexican national quiet.

The Arizona Republic ran this story on the front page on Sunday, and CBS News national, and dozens of other outlets, picked up this story from AP.  The AP story focuses on Babeu’s challenge to win a Republican primary after being “outed.”

One question that hasn’t been answered is, why would Babeu resign from Romney’s campaign and continue his Congressional campaign?  If you can’t be a volunteer co-chairman of a state for a Presidential campaign, does it make sense to continue to run for office yourself?

I continue to assert that his being gay is not the issue here.  The issue is what actions he or his attorney took to cover up that he is gay.  DeRose claims that the whole matter was put to rest after the ex-boyfriend turned over the social media passwords, but that is clearly false.

As the New Times reports, DeRose emailed the ex-boyfriend after he had turned over the passwords suggesting they get together to “discuss settling these outstanding claims.”

In his defense, DeRose provides a “cease and desist” letter he wrote to Jose, and he points out to New Times that there are no threats in that letter.

We didn’t expect him to provide us a copy of the threat he is accused of making.

The assertions from Babeu’s camp that the dispute between he and Jose ended after Jose turned over passwords to the campaign accounts Babeu says were hacked strain credulity when you consider the letters Weiss-Riner sent to Babeu and his attorney.

And DeRose’s own e-mail to Jose on September 7 — after he turned over the passwords — contradicts his characterization that Jose wasn’t pressed to sign anything after he complied with DeRose’s requests.

“We have a decision to make about what’s already been done,” DeRose wrote to Jose. “If you have cooperated as it appears, this will mitigate heavily in your favor. As we consider what’s already been done, would you like your opinion to be considered?”

DeRose invites Jose to his office to “discuss settling these outstanding claims.”

They asked him to turn over the passwords, which he did. And yet, contrary to DeRose’s portrayal to New Times and other media outlets that that was the end of it, his own e-mail states there were “outstanding claims.”

So what were the “outstanding claims”?  Until answers are provided by Babeu and his attorney this looks like a threat.  And that’s the problem – when you are in a hole, stop digging.

Pinal County Sheriff Babeu held a press conference on Saturday to knock down allegations that he threatened to deport his former boyfriend, dismissing those charges as false.  But the denial leaves some unanswered questions.

At first blush the idea of Babeu bravely standing before the media and admitting that he is gay – essentially “owning” the issue – seems like a good idea, but the press conference actually raised more questions than it answered.

The role of Babeu’s attorney and campaign manager, Chris DeRose is unclear, and needs further explanation.  What exactly did DeRose say and do in his interactions with the former boyfriend and his attorney?

If this is about private and personal issues, why would Babeu feel compelled to tell the Romney camp that he was stepping down as the state co-chair of the campaign?

Why would Babeu need to make an obvious statement that he couldn’t deport someone himself?  No one doubts that – I’m sure not even his former boyfriend.  To raise that seems odd.

Why is Babeu not threatening legal action against the former boyfriend for making such a “false accusation?”  Babeu and his attorney seemed more than ready to utilize the legal system when all the guy had done was log into a website and twitter account.  But he accuses Babeu of illegal activity and abuse of power and Babeu’s response is to hold a press conference?

One text exchange reported in the New Times story implies there was more to this than just website tampering.

In one series of texts Jose provided, the sheriff himself appears to be threatening his former lover:

Babeu:  “You can never have business after this and you will harm me and many others in the process . . . including yourself & your family.”

Babeu followed with: “And you say you have loved me? Papi . . . this is no good.”

Jose responded: “Good threats. Wont work. Im already hurt me . . . and you didn’t care.”

Then later:

Jose: “Dont threat me. Thats illegal. Im just speaking . . . true.”

Babeu: “You have crossed the line. Better get an attorney. You brother will also be contacted.”

What did Babeu mean when he wrote “You brother will also be contacted”?  This drama is far from over.

Which is why for many political hacks like me, the idea of a press conference didn’t seem to make sense.  Long-time PR guru, David Leibowitz tweeted: Can’t believe Babeu is holding a press conference. File this under PR/political disaster.

However, PR man Jim Sharpe tweeted:  @PaulBabeuAZ handled himself with grace and dignity today. Hope he transforms #Republican party on gay issues. #StraightOnTheBorder

Sharpe is right that Babeu handled himself with grace and dignity on the issue of being gay, but that’s not what this story is or should be about.

One of the things that has many political observers buzzing is the seemingly disregard between Babeu’s official office and his campaign.  That was only highlighted as he continued to insist that his private life was “out of bounds.”  If he is going to use that defense, it can’t be done in uniform in front of the Sheriff’s office with more than a dozen Sheriff’s officers, in uniform, standing behind him.

There appears to be a pattern of the blurring of the official versus campaign lines.  For example, Babeu uses the exact photograph on his campaign website as is posted on the Pinal County Sheriff’s website.  Not legal.

This is far from settled.

I swear I didn’t know the scandal surrounding Sheriff Paul Babeu was going to break when I named my last post “Hot Arizona Politics.”  Call it bad headline timing.

In all seriousness, Babeu should resign as Sheriff of Pinal County.  Not because he is gay (that’s immaterial) but because it appears that he abused his office and demonstrated one of the most egregious acts of hypocrisy possible.

The Phoenix New Times reports that Babeu was in a relationship with an individual and when that relationship ended, Babeu and his attorney threatened deportation of the individual if the relationship was exposed.  Babeu and his attorney denied that charge when asked by the Arizona Republic.

If, in fact, Babeu knew that his boyfriend was in the country illegally (the New Times story alludes to an expired visa) he had an obligation as a law enforcement officer to report that to the Feds.  That he didn’t, but then threatened to do so when the relationship ended, is an abuse of power.  It is hypocrisy because of his public pronouncements about illegal immigration and border security.

There is no question that his budding Congressional campaign is over.  Because it is a Republican primary in a conservative district, it’s likely that the thing that hurts him the most is that he was in a gay relationship.

However, that is not the scandal.  Let’s try this hypothetical.  He was in a relationship with a young lady from England who was here on a student or work visa and it expired.  The relationship sours, and he threatens her with deportation if she talks about the relationship.  It doesn’t sound as scandalous, but the abuse and hypocrisy remain.

I don’t give a rip about him being in a relationship with a man from Mexico.  I care that as a Republican, and someone who has repeatedly preached “the rule of law,” he abused his power and is a hypocrite.

For the sake of the party and for the sake of just doing the right thing, he should resign as Sheriff.

As I have written before, the Quayle vs. Schweikert primary for Congressional District 6 is going to be one heck of a race.

The race has barely started, and it’s already personal – somehow even getting personal towards me when you look at one of the comments from my previous post on this issue.

Congressman Quayle sent out an email that responds to a number of emails, comments and general murmurings coming out of the Schweikert camp.

The best line of the email is this:

The 6th District does not belong to David, as his campaign communications assert, nor does it belong to me or to any office seeker. It belongs to the people who live there.

That reminded me of when Scott Brown beat Martha Coakely in the Senate seat to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.  Brown used the same language.

In fact, that is a major tenant of the tea party movement – that political offices belong to the people, not the politicians who are elected to represent them.  There is a certain unseemly arrogance when politicians claim ownership of anything, let alone the office in which they were privileged to serve.

Geez, it’s only the middle of February.

Obama’s supposed compromise on a rule requiring religious institutions to cover contraception was summarily rejected by the U.S. Catholic Bishops.

Catholic bishops said Friday night that they would not support the Obama administration’s proposed compromise on a controversial rule that requires most employers to fully cover contraception in their workers’ health plans.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had led opposition to the regulation, issued a statement saying that they didn’t believe their concerns were addressed by a new policy offered by President Barack Obama on Friday morning to allow religious employers who object to the use of birth control to turn over responsibility for covering it to insurance companies.

This line from a story in Politico exposes the true thinking of the administration:

A senior administration official told POLITICO Saturday that the White House didn’t expect to win the support of the bishops with Friday’s updated policy. Instead, the official said, the administration was focused on achieving a balance of respecting religious beliefs and ensuring women had access to preventive services.

This is another example that Obama doesn’t want to actually respect religious liberty, but rather push an aggressive anti-First Amendment agenda and try to wedge the Catholic Church against its members.

As further evidence of the disregard of religious liberty, a very smart political observer emailed HHS’s women’s health “Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines” to me and made this point:

Nowhere does it talk about infertility or fertility treatments — which is a legitimate illness/disease, as opposed to pregnancy, which is not. The Church is opposed to artificial means of conception as well, and would fight this too. If the Administration genuinely cared about “women’s reproductive health” however, wouldn’t they care about treating infertility as much, if not more than, fertility?  Why do they want to kill babies so badly?

I think that says it all about the real agenda of Obama’s administration.

Mitt Romney enjoyed a big day on Saturday.  First he won the straw poll at CPAC – something that no one believed was possible.  Then, later Saturday, he won the Maine caucus, edging out Ron Paul, whom everyone thought was going to win the Maine caucus.  Paul even skipped CPAC to spend time in Maine, and yet lost both.

This puts Romney at more than 100 delegates and Ron Paul with fewer than 20.  Gingrich is under 30 delegates and Santorum has just more than 70.

This makes Arizona and Michigan important contests at the end of the month.  Santorum has predicted he will win Michigan, and he might. But if he doesn’t, Romney will be riding momentum into Super Tuesday with a sure win in Arizona.

One thing is for sure, Gingrich is done.  CPAC is not the establishment crowd – as evidenced by Ron Paul’s straw poll wins in 2010 and 2011 – but the self-proclaimed anti-establishment candidate, Newt Gingrich, only garnered 15% of the vote, for a distant 3^rd place finish.

The CPAC straw poll results are very interesting.  Romney winning CPAC challenges the narrative that Mitt Romney can’t get the support of the most conservative elements of the GOP.  CPAC is the most conservative of the base GOP, and handing Romney a solid straw poll victory will give Romney additional momentum.

While this primary contest seems to be dragging on forever, remember, it’s only Feb. 11.  Obama didn’t secure the nomination from Hillary Clinton until June of 2008.  There is still plenty of time for the GOP to resolve the contest and then focus on beating Obama.