Congress

U.S. House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan is the most serious person in Washington when it comes to taking on the real challenges of government spending and debt.  Washington Democrats will howl at the budget he releases today, which should be proof enough that it is something we need.

Here is a great video introduction of Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity Budget.

Freak show Dennis Kucinich lost huge to Marcy Kaptur in the Ohio CD9 Democrat primary, 56-40.  Proof that the Democrat Party is not completely crazy.  The interesting thing about this primary is that Kucinich is philosophically closer to Obama than Kaptur.  That does not bode well for Obama in Ohio in November.

So the debate over who is more conservative, Ben Quayle or David Schweikert, continues to point to Quayle being more conservative.

The American Conservative Union (the group that organizes CPAC) released it’s 2011 Congressional Scorecard today.

Qualye scored a perfect 100 and Schweikert scored 96.

That’s a close score, it represents one vote in which Qualye and Schweikert differed.  So, it appears that it isn’t that big of a deal.

But the details point out something disturbing.  Here is how the ACU lists this particular vote:

Spending increase. HR 2354 (Roll Call 586)

The House passed an amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill increasing spending on renewable energy and energy efficiency programs by $10 million. These programs had received massive increases in the 2009 budget and the Obama stimulus program. ACU opposes these attempts to reverse modest spending cuts and opposed this amendment. Nevertheless, the House passed the amendment on July 15, 2011 by a vote of 212-210.

This is stunning.  Schweikert voted to increase spending? What’s worse, it’s to support an industry that has already been one of the biggest beneficiaries of government largesse since Obama took office.  Just picture the infamous Solyndra failure.  Most amazing, is that Schweikert cast the deciding vote for passage.

That’s not very conservative.

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.

The primary battle between Ben Quayle and David Schweikert in the newly drawn Congressional District 6 will be the first time in modern history that Arizona has had a Congressional primary match-up between two incumbents.

[Sidebar]

I have known David Schweikert for nearly 20 years and Ben Quayle is my Congressman.  I do not represent either campaign, nor will I, or my firm, sign on with either campaign in this race.

[End Sidebar]

Let’s look at the facts:

* The new CD 6 includes about 63% of Quayle’s current district and about 27% of Schweikert’s current district.

* On the money front, the two candidates will probably raise about the same amount.

* While I haven’t done a vote analysis of Quayle and Schweikert, my guess is that they have tracked within a couple percentage points of each other on voting the same way in the U.S. House.

* Quayle will have the advantage of having represented nearly 2/3 of the district.  Schweikert has been on the ballot county-wide, although that’s now a number of years ago. It’s hard to know what carry-over effect that will have on the parts of the district that will be new to him.

With those facts, no one can credibly predict what the outcome will be.  That’s why we have elections.  While I don’t think endorsements matter that much in politics, in a race that will be more about style and personality, rather than issues, an endorsement by Senator Jon Kyl or Congressman John Shadegg could tip the scale.

Given that Shadegg did not endorse in the primary for his replacement, I would be surprised if he endorsed now.  I would also be surprised if Senator Kyl endorsed here.

This will be a major battle.  It already appears to be turning personal- Schweikert sent an email to supporters accusing Quayle of taking a “magic carpet ride to carpet bag” into CD 6.  I don’t think that argument is going to get Schweikert very far, but it’s just the beginning, and it will get pretty wild.