Arizona tea party leaders decline to endorse Hayworth over McCain
posted at 6:04 pm on March 1, 2010 by Allahpundit
Just call them … mavericks.
The organizers of the four largest Arizona Tea Party organizations – including the Tucson Tea Party, Greater Phoenix Tea Party, Flagstaff Tea Party, and Mohave County Tea Party – issued a joint press release regarding their unified decision to decline endorsing a candidate in the Arizona Senate primary race between John McCain, J.D. Hayworth, and Jim Deakin.
“The Tea Party is a non-partisan, grassroots movement that stands for limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility. Both McCain and Hayworth’s records during their many years in Washington leave much to be desired on these issues,” said Robert Mayer, co-founder of the Tucson Tea Party. “It is their job to hold themselves up to these values and fight for our votes.”…
“It is not appropriate to make an endorsement in this race at the drop of a hat, as some other groups are doing,” said Kelly Townsend, organizer of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party. “The movement must stand for ideas, and do everything possible to provide information to people so that they can make the best personal decisions.”
A shrewd move, actually. Commenters in Headlines were speculating that this was meant as a statement that Birthers aren’t welcome in the tea party ranks, but I don’t think that’s the point. (Or rather, not the main point.) Hayworth voted for Bush’s Medicare prescription-drug bill and for the bridge to nowhere; by refusing to back him against the RINOiest RINO of them all, they’re making a statement that endorsees have to be pure in the abstract, not just purer than the alternative. Or, as Beck put it at CPAC in addressing Dick Cheney, “It’s not enough just to not suck as much as the other side.” By picking this race to lay down that marker, they’re implicitly saying they’d rather see John McCain back in the Senate than compromise their principles on a less-than-optimal challenger. Strong stuff. I wonder if Beck — and the boss emeritus — agree.
As for who is pure enough to get the endorsement, aside from these guys, I’m not sure. Doesn’t really matter, though: The Arizona TP leaders know that most of their members will vote for Hayworth anyway, and the caveat in the blockquote about not endorsing “at the drop of a hat” suggests they might weigh in for him later at a opportune moment if he’s within striking distance. Exit question: Was this also aimed obliquely at Palin, who obviously doesn’t have the same qualms about McCain that TPers do?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Sure, if it makes you happy. :)
I’ve enjoyed the headline thread on this. Good theories.
Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 6:07 PM
You don’t tug on Superman’s cape…if you can avoid it.
RBMN on March 1, 2010 at 6:08 PM
My own theory is that with any building movement, it’s unwise to punch over your weight. The Tea Parties are seen right now as instrumental in key wins: Mass especially, and Crist’s flameout. It doesn’t make sense politically to divide the movement over McCain’s likely win. Seems wise to not endorse.
Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 6:10 PM
This was smart.
I am not a McCain fan, but Hayworth isn’t much better.
Conservative Voice on March 1, 2010 at 6:10 PM
This proves that thre i uch a thing as a stupid question. Anyone with any concept of honor know that unless McCain turned into a screamimg lefty or switchd parties, Palin was personally honor bound to endorse him.
bill30097 on March 1, 2010 at 6:15 PM
strategery
rob verdi on March 1, 2010 at 6:16 PM
This seems like a wise move for the AZ TP organizers. Neither candidate is ‘pure’ enough for a ringing endorsement, so let the primary play out. The winner will come sniffing around soon enough for the general election endorsement.
Then let the candidate know what you want for planks.
GnuBreed on March 1, 2010 at 6:16 PM
I think this was the result of that teaparty convention, which put aside birthers.
This group apparently decided to follow through.
Interesting.
AnninCA on March 1, 2010 at 6:16 PM
Hayworth is not a good candidate!!!!
If McCain had been challenged by someone who isn’t a couple of eggs short of a dozen they might have beat him. But I’m not voting for Hayworth for senate, no way!
JD is the Republican equivalent of Al Franken! He is just embarrassing.
petunia on March 1, 2010 at 6:18 PM
I’m reliably informed by the NYT that whichever candidate includes parts from the communist manifesto first, will be the candidate who gets the ‘tea bagger’ endorsement.
Spirit of 1776 on March 1, 2010 at 6:19 PM
I don’t know these Tea Party people are and I couldn’t really care less about who they are endorsing. So long as they stay away from supporting McShame, that’s fine with me. Their babblings about JD mean very little.
neurosculptor on March 1, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Maybe. But Palin is a Republican, Tea Partiers not necessarily so. Smarter of her to be loyal.
rbj on March 1, 2010 at 6:21 PM
No, she wasn’t. Not in the least. But most people have given her a pass on this (myself included).
neurosculptor on March 1, 2010 at 6:21 PM
This is an issue that goes well beyond this race: the leadership of the larger metropolitan Tea Parties are refusing to do ANY endorsements. Personally- and from my personal experience- this is a HUGE mistake. Our small group came up with what we call the ‘TeaApprove’ process (not a straight endorsement, more a clearance) and we have had PHENOMENAL (actually ludicrous) impact locally. Our group has 2% of the Dallas Tea Party mailing list and recently pulled a crowd one fourth the size of their last one. Our phones are suffering meltdowns today dealing with candidates and our website had 5 times the traffic as before. Most importantly: candidates and officials are listening to us!
It’s been a HUGE headache personally (the elite, moneyed GOP establishment truly hates us) and I almost dread it if our candidates carry the day. We’ll have WAY too many ‘new friends’ and I do have to work for a living.
michaelo on March 1, 2010 at 6:22 PM
Why are “birthers” treated like pariahs?
Because the “natural-born” requirement seems nativist? It’s in the Constitution; why not amend that if it’s so offensive?
Because the same team that found the Bush National Guard memos finds nothing wrong with the Hawaiian live birth certificate?
Because it’s so insulting to Barack Obama?
I don’t understand why a “birther” is totally disqualified. Should I fear the Birthers will come after me next? I got my birth certificate in an ammo box; I had to get it when I turned 18, and not because I ran for any office.
Just wondering why a political movement that thinks the FDA is optional and the DEA is unconstitutional is so down on the “wackos”. It couldn’t be that the Right People in media won’t tolerate (or accomodate/accredit) webjournalists from one of Those Websites, is it??
Chris_Balsz on March 1, 2010 at 6:23 PM
Personally I’m persuaded by the argument that if Barack Obama was that vulnerable, Clinton would have thrown the lever on him 3 years ago. I’m really just curious.
Chris_Balsz on March 1, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Can they seriously not come up with a better candidate to challenge McCain?
deidre on March 1, 2010 at 6:26 PM
Don’t over think it. They both suck.
portlandon on March 1, 2010 at 6:26 PM
HUGE snore.
Tea Party groups in VA arent endorsing at all.
When you are a 501C4, you can’t really endorse anyway.
This is not a big deal.
A voice of reason on March 1, 2010 at 6:27 PM
AnninCA on March 1, 2010 at 6:27 PM
lol, which ‘ideals’ are you standing for if McCain isn’t significantly the opposite?
Midas on March 1, 2010 at 6:27 PM
Jim Deakin looks interesting.
Ray Flicker on March 1, 2010 at 6:27 PM
JD’s war chest will tell the true story – watch it fill up. Watch $$ start coming in to it from all over the Nation. I’ll certainly be sending him some $$. DD
Darvin Dowdy on March 1, 2010 at 6:29 PM
Clinton didn’t throw lever because he had something on them too…
They made a deal..I won’t show yours if you don’t show mine. and I’ll throw in Sec of State too…..
nondhimmie on March 1, 2010 at 6:31 PM
McCain or JD… which is the lesser of two evils…
I’m glad these folks are refusing to play that ole GOP game… ie being forced to support a substandard candidate, because the other one is worse…
Romeo13 on March 1, 2010 at 6:36 PM
Great move by the Arizona Tea Partiers! Keep ‘em wondering (Republicans), what might happen if they refuse to run on the conservative lines TP’ers have written in stone.
This also straightens out the foundation to the question of whether the Tea Party will run the liberal media’s dream of a third party candidate splitting the party. Under Zona’s TPers it appears they will eventually choose between the lesser of two evils in the general—leaving most Democrats high and dry.
Rovin on March 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM
OT: What did I miss??? Plan Effing B is now the bill de jour???
I knew it, was true when they denied it, but man oh man am I pizzed!
Chewy the Lab on March 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM
Exit answer- Tea Partiers were probably slamming Romney for endorsing McCain.
/sarc
cs89 on March 1, 2010 at 6:40 PM
Sorry, didn’t scroll down far enough on the home page to see the thread…my bad…just got out of back-to-back-to-back meetings, so have been Clueless (the eighth dwarf) all afternoon.
Chewy the Lab on March 1, 2010 at 6:41 PM
again I remind everyone DEMS are a large part of the AZ Tea Party, me for one….but I actually dont trust MAC now, esp since Graham came out for the New! cap and trade bill today….how can we make sure MAC is not going to shaft AZ with some crazy immigration amnesty in the future (always a smooth move with high high UE)?
since Im not in the GOP I have , rightfully, no voice in the primary, but I would vote for JD, who is my former CongressCritter, i actually helped elect Mithell to replace him, lol..anywho I will vote for ANY R over the D they would run out here but I would feel better if it were JD, he wouldnt back amnesty….
ginaswo on March 1, 2010 at 6:42 PM
To put it plainly Chris, it’s a stupid argument compared to all the legitimate reasons we need to put an end to the liberal Democrats social engineering experiments destroying this nation. AND, Obama is not running in 2010. Nothing, repeat nothing resolving the question of Obama’s birthplace will have an impact on this next election cycle, except ammunition for Democrats.
Rovin on March 1, 2010 at 6:51 PM
Are any Tea Parties endorsing candidates? There was an attempt to get the one in Baton Rouge via its bylaws to be able to endorse candidates, but most were against it.
It is no surprise that those Tea Parties in AZ are not endorsing anyone. They shouldn’t.
Kermit on March 1, 2010 at 6:54 PM
Where do the Tepees stand on immigration? I don’t see them calling for sending the illegals back home as we are suffering through 10% unemployment. The government is spending my money extending never ending welfare benefits to the unemployed who should be replacing the illegals in these jobs.
Buddahpundit on March 1, 2010 at 6:55 PM
With everyone hating on McCain (understandibly), it scares me that people would actually vote for JD Hayworth expecting anything better. The guy is a doofus.
Scrappy on March 1, 2010 at 6:55 PM
The AZ Tea Party’s made the correct call on this primary. It’s a bold move that holds the candidates accountable for their actions/inactions.
TN Mom on March 1, 2010 at 6:55 PM
I sure hope nobody has a picture of DeMint and Rubio making a waitress sandwich.
Elizabetty on March 1, 2010 at 7:03 PM
I like JD. He’s a good man.
neurosculptor on March 1, 2010 at 7:12 PM
The Greater Phoenix Tea Party, with a whopping 800 members (in the 5th largest city in the country, no less), is being run as a personal fiefdom for the benefit of a political wannabe who is struggling to appear relevant. It would be a mistake to assume they represent any but a small fraction of local Tea Party sentiment.
That group incorporated last fall – and has yet to hold the required, timely elections of officers; various ‘decisions’, supposedly approved by their Board of Directors, have been dictated from their president without the knowledge of other Board members, much less a Board Meeting, and; several dissenting ‘chapters’ have broken away to become independent because Ms. Townsend, a rebel without a clue, is a declared (Republican) candidate for the State Legislature, but has refused to recuse herself from a leadership role in the Tea Party organization, instead using it as leverage to garner political attention. Conflict of interest, anyone?
Moreover, dissenting members have found themselves suddenly ‘disappeared’ from the membership roster and denied access to the group’s dedicated blog.
This is an outfit with delusions of adequacy.
TenRing on March 1, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Hayworth is bad news for a range of reasons apart from his (very mild) Birther pandering.
Lehosh on March 1, 2010 at 7:14 PM
Because some people need a “litmus” test to easily decide who they will support…
It makes them feel moraly superior… kind of… elitist…
Kinda like… the science is settled…
Romeo13 on March 1, 2010 at 7:16 PM
Epic Tax Code Fail
Proud Rino on March 1, 2010 at 7:17 PM
I don’t think the Tea Partiers have some grand, Machiavellian scheme in mind. They just don’t like Hayworth, which is a pretty typical sentiment in Arizona.
RightOFLeft on March 1, 2010 at 7:34 PM
This is exactly what they say it is–principles over politicians. TPers will give their endorsements where it counts, in the voting booth.
pugwriter on March 1, 2010 at 7:39 PM
Hey I will be at the rally Friday for MAC with Scott Brown :0)
for any other AZ folk here is info:
post a comment at my bloggy spot if you need the rsvp email!
ginaswo on March 1, 2010 at 7:39 PM
scrappy
JD answered every single contact I made with him when he was my Critter, and that was at the absolute height of my liberal Demness
he gets points for that in my book
ginaswo on March 1, 2010 at 7:40 PM
TEA PARTY
Metro on March 1, 2010 at 7:41 PM
We here at Piercecountyteaparty.com thought that was a great idea and we want to copy it for the People’s Republic of Washington. I take it that you have no objection to us plagerizing it, right?
platypus on March 1, 2010 at 7:46 PM
Looking for someone who does more than campaign as a conservtive but somone who also governs as a conservative.
lwssdd on March 1, 2010 at 7:47 PM
Some of them are also obsessed with what the left thinks about them, though they’ll never admit this (even to themselves).
2Brave2Bscared on March 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM
No Allah, you cretin, this has nothing to do with Palin.
One thing about Sarah though, she is always on the cutting edge. She endorsed McCain early now pretty much everyone has.
With that said, the Tea Party groups are smart to stay out of this deal. McCain is no one’s favorite son and Hayworth is a crack pot.
gary4205 on March 1, 2010 at 8:02 PM
At Superstition Springs Mall (Mesa AZ), Christmas 2004: I was getting a watch repaired and Arizona politics came up. Janet ( “the system works”) Napolitano had recently been reelected governor and I expressed my surprise, having thought Arizona was conservative. “Oh, we are,” I was told, “but she seems to be doing a good job – the economy’s doing great!”
Eren on March 1, 2010 at 8:06 PM
Correct call by Arizona tea partiers. McCain is the better candidate overall.
Phil Byler on March 1, 2010 at 8:22 PM
AZ must be full of AZZes if these two are the best they can do.
Capt. Crankypants versus Dr. Birtherstein.
Write in someone with some sense!
profitsbeard on March 1, 2010 at 8:26 PM
How a candidate stands on illegal immigration is a deal breaker for me. Your either for the rule of law or you don’t give a sh%t, and we know where McCain and apparently Sarah Palin stands.
nivram1 on March 1, 2010 at 8:35 PM
I looked over Jim Deakins Web page; he reads as though he’s agreeable. But what can you really tell from a web page…?? I ran across a Conservative Scoring somewhere, giving Hayworth a 107 score versus McCain’s 72. I don’t live in AZ, but if I did, I’d have to go with Deakins.
Rainboskies on March 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM
I agree. I listened to JD every day when he was on the radio and pretty much agreed with everything he said. After reviewing his congressional record (I didn’t live in AZ when he was a congresscritter). I have my doubts about him now. It looks like he’s just another panderer.
Deakins appears to be the kind of candidate that the tea party can propel into the voters’ consciousness.
Ray Flicker on March 1, 2010 at 8:49 PM
In game theory, do nothing is often the best answer. And this is a perfect illustration. You can get a Jon Kyle elected in AZ, why settle for a retread like Hayworth. McCain is a pain, but too electable in AZ to die on your sword.
phreshone on March 1, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Try this guy:
Jim Deakin
Quoting from his home page: “The 2nd Amendment is NOT a Loophole.”
He could move to Texas. We are very tired of Cirano Rodriquez.
Blacksmith8 on March 1, 2010 at 9:47 PM
Today’s definition of stupid is: Rationalizing away that an ineligible player CANNOT HOLD OFFICE is no reason to try to remove said player from the field. Get a grip on reality. This has nothing to do with fighting the good fight. This is about our freedom, yours and mine, my children, and their children. If you won’t resist by any means available, then you are choosing to live on your knees.
To paraphrase a kinsman: I’d rather die on my feet with a sword in my hand.
Blacksmith8 on March 1, 2010 at 10:02 PM
Exactly, you see some people ARE pro-life and some people AREN’T. It would be the same as asking Ed if he was Catholic.
Blacksmith8 on March 1, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Doofus? What are you smoking. He was a top 100 radio personality in the nation.
The guy isn’t a moron and he is world’s better than McCain. He was a team player, even when it made his district go from 60%+ GoP registration to 52% GoP Registration. He is a Conservative, though he did bend to the party pressing him to vote for a few bad bills.
Bending to the party is a hell of a lot better than running over to the other side to stab the Conservatives in the back.
McCain is only running and acting Conservative long enough to win. If we get 50+ in the Senate, watch him “cross the aisle” on ever single big issue.
He may be a war hero, but he definitely isn’t a patriot to have cooked up the Alien and Sedition Act Part Duex</em?
Tim Burton on March 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM
JD’s votes were kinda tough. He was pressured by the party. In 2000, when he took the re-districting that made his district extremely competitive, he had a situation, where he needed to be a team player. That led to some votes that weren’t optimal. I remember him talking on the radio about the Prescription vote. He basically said, “Sometimes you vote for something you don’t agree with because you are forced too.”
Later on, before 2006, he stated he regretted the vote. That said, he’s still better than McCain who will backstab you on every big issue. I’ve never seen a man grab defeat from the claws of victory as I have with McCain. We could have had a lot more Conservative Federal judges, except McCain and Grahamnesty sold us out. For that alone, McCain deserves to be removed in shame.
Tim Burton on March 1, 2010 at 11:05 PM
I think the non-endorsement with the possibility of a change in the future is just right. They may get some concrete commitments from these two before making an endorsement.
motionview on March 1, 2010 at 11:27 PM
I’m in agreement on McCain. The fact that JD gave in to party pressure is an indictment the tea party can use.
Why don’t we hear anything about Deakin?
Ray Flicker on March 1, 2010 at 11:40 PM
Because he is a nobody. He needs to run for something in the State and move up. Like Tom Horn is going to do.
The team-player issue with JD was that the Party told him basically, “We’ll throw you under the bus if you don’t do what we want.” Since he cut his district lead and didn’t have the seniority that McCain does, he had to bend.
Sucks, but it’s what it was.
Tim Burton on March 2, 2010 at 12:07 AM
Oh and those Judges that McCain backstabbed us on….Well, Obama is putting them in place. Basically we are going to have to wait 20 years to fix the damage that McCain is solely responsible for. Without him, Graham would have stayed out of the sellout Gang of 14.
Tim Burton on March 2, 2010 at 12:09 AM
Why not run Howard Stern then? Hayworth isn’t going anywhere, thankfully.
Boxy_Brown on March 2, 2010 at 3:31 AM
Palin may not have been bound to endorse McCain – but if she refused to do so then McCain might also decide to not back his VP choice. That would definitely be something that would be discussed.
Palin’s endorsement of McCain and the Tea Party’s lack of endorsing a candidate appears to me to be directly related.
The Tea Party is choosing to avoid a division. If they backed McCain some Tea Party people may have scoffed at the endorsement. Breaking from Palin’s endorsement would also raise eyebrows given Palin’s favorable stature in the Tea Party movement.
That’s not to say all Palin endorsements and Tea Party endorsements have to be in synch – but the McCain endorsement is one that was going to be under a microscope.
It also allows for some cover from the lamestream media (and HotAir) attacks on all things remotely ‘birther’. As a ‘birther’ I think it is appalling that even is a consideration when ‘truthers’ like Ron Paul and Kucinich elude all similar media attacks – but this is the biased media environment that even conservative sites like Hot Air have imposed upon us.
Mr Purple on March 2, 2010 at 4:34 AM
If they’re for standing on principles, I don’t know how they can throw any support to McCain. Backdoor John’s biggest principle is what vote will give me the most media a**kissing on TV. Pathetic. Let the old backstabber win. Hello Obama bi-partisan amnesty. Take that to the bank.
austinnelly on March 2, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Neocons, or should I say LIBERALS, the folks at American Grand Jury have called you on the carpet!
Oh, and one of AGJ’s readers commented thus…
TOUCHE!
BobAnthony on March 3, 2010 at 7:03 AM