One of the major stories surrounding the sudden and swift leftward drift of the country over the past year or so has been the emergence of what I call the “new right,” which is a movement inclusive of the tea party and other similarly interested political groups. This movement is large and diverse and defies simple characterization. However, it is clear that the people forming the movement share a near-universal hostility to rapidly increasing government spending, a deeply held skepticism of the leadership of both political parties and a viscerally negative reaction to the rent-seeking behavior of various politically connected groups and businesses that carry too much influence in Washington.
The new right openly threatens both parties’ establishments. It does not want reckless disregard for its values, as has recently occurred under President Obama. Nor does it want the fecklessness concerning the issues that haunted Republicans during most of the Bush years. The new right insists it is not merely another interest group seeking power or favor. Instead, it merely wants its values taken seriously. Furthermore, it insists that it has no leader and is not interested in parties, personalities or slogans but in real commitment to actual implementation of its principles. The new right demands these principles be taken seriously and not scuttled at the first sign of trouble by nervous politicians insisting that expediency trumps the good of the country.
What has not yet been proven, however, is if the new right itself is to be taken seriously. Does it really represent a new movement that seeks to change the way business is done and is serious about overspending and diminishing the power of the party leadership? Or is it just another group seeking political power and position for its own sake? The new right’s seriousness will soon be tested in the Arizona Senate primary this fall.
If the new right is serious, it will back Sen. John McCain’s re-election bid. If it is not serious, it will back McCain’s predictable, bomb-throwing, unserious primary opponent: former Congressman J.D. Hayworth.
Why is this? Hayworth claims to be “one of them.” He even looks and sounds like it on the surface. But he is a fake, a fraud, a professional slick talker with a shallow understanding of the new right’s true values. McCain, despite all his faults, is an infinitely better representative of the tea party’s values. And if the new right is a sincere, mature movement, it will recognize this.
Hayworth, to put it bluntly, is the Al Franken of the right. He was as unqualified for the time he spent in Congress, as he is for the Senate seat he seeks. Having spent his entire non-congressional career in broadcasting, he is skilled at saying what folks want to hear and being self-congratulatory about being “right” on the issues. His accomplishments as a Congressman are slight and mostly consist of a long list of gaffes, a heavy amount of earmarks and support for pork-barrel projects, a cozy relationship with Jack Abramoff, a very stormy relationship with most Republican officials in his district and a PAC he created that paid 30% of its receipts to his own wife.
After suffering a humiliating loss in 2006 in what should have been a safe Republican seat, Hayworth is now determined to catapult back into the spotlight by beating McCain in the primary and establishing himself statewide during a better year for Republicans. To do this, he intends to portray McCain as a tool of the establishment and himself the “true conservative” ready to take on the fight for the “authentic” tea party folks.
In short, Hayworth banks on the new right being stupid.
McCain, on the other hand, has been one of the première defenders of the new right’s values throughout his entire career. Impervious to who was in the White House or who has controlled Congress, McCain has railed against the influence of politically connected businesses and groups, relentlessly fought excess government spending in all of its various forms and has always been a thorn in the side of any establishment in power. In fact, his tireless crusade against his own party’s reckless spending has caused fellow Republican Sen. Thad Cochran, Vice Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to say that the thought of McCain as president sent a “chill down my spine,” because of McCain’s hostility to the Senate Appropriations Committee’s agenda.
McCain’s opponents on the right cite a long list of grievances, many of which cannot withstand serious scrutiny. A number of things about McCain that infuriated conservatives during the Bush years, such as McCain’s relentless criticism of overspending by Bush and the Republican Congress and his call for increased troop levels and activities in Iraq long before the surge, have since been vindicated by history in the minds of conservatives.
The two other grievances are McCain’s support for campaign finance reform and his support for some form of comprehensive immigration reform (known by its opponents as “amnesty”).
The first grievance might be serious in theory, but it’s meaningless in practice. The Supreme Court has gutted the campaign finance reform bill pushed by McCain and what remains will not significantly affect how campaigns are funded. And however misguided, McCain’s support for these laws was always to break the control of the party establishment and politically connected people with deep pockets. His seriousness about the issue shows he has a lot more in common with the new right than some might believe.
The second grievance might be more serious if Hayworth offered anything other than a simplistic slogan that he is against amnesty and that he wants to “enforce the law” at the border. It might sound nice in a sound bite but no serious person thinks the problem is that simple. While proposals may differ in profound and ideological manners, Hayworth offers nothing beyond slogans. It’s also worth noting that FreedomWorks, a group that has been active in helping the tea party movement, is also supportive of comprehensive immigration reform. So it’s hardly an issue that the new right is united on.
There is a reason that heroes of the tea party movement, such as Sarah Palin and Sen. Tom Coburn, back McCain. And it’s not because of their gratefulness or collegiality, as McCain’s opponents would have you believe. It is because they recognize that he is a courageous fighter and that the new right’s values can only be achieved when such courage exists.
Coburn’s support for McCain is instructive. Coburn, a citizen politician with a strong disdain for Washington, is in many ways the embodiment of the new right movement. Despite borderline hostility from the Republican establishment, Coburn won election in 2004 and wasted no time picking fights with the Senate’s Republican leadership. He fought not for personal gain, but for increased transparency and for fiscal restraint.
Yet Coburn perplexed many people by giving McCain an early endorsement in the last presidential cycle. In praising McCain in July 2007, during the divisive immigration debate and during a time when McCain’s presidential campaign was floundering, Coburn, who disagreed with McCain’s position on immigration, said, “Most politicians possess, in abundance, the skill of making promises that will appeal to a majority of voters. Very few politicians, however, ever demonstrate the kind of political courage Sen. McCain [has] demonstrated.”
Indeed, Coburn’s statement may have been apt for that time, but they ring even more true now. Arizona primary voters, in particular the new right, are challenged with a choice between someone who “makes promises that will appeal to the majority of voters” and a politician with the political courage to fight for the values that both most dear, even if they have had quarrels before. The answer will demonstrate if the new right is just another “Throw the bums out and replace them with our bums,” political movement, or if it is the serious political movement that America needs it to be.
Cliff Smith
A Seattle, Washington native, Cliff Smith worked for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Committee on Finance. He also worked on numerous campaigns in his home state. Cliff holds a law degree from Catholic University, a Master's in Public Policy from Pepperdine and a BA from Washington State. 
No “serious” student of the Tea Party movement would mistake opposition to Senator McCain as anything other than the shrewd judgment of people fed up with unpredictable behavior. Senator McCain’s “Maverick” status translates from Journalist-speak to “Who knows what he will say/do next!”
Arizona’s citizens want someone who follows a consistent philosophy of smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom. Sen. McCain opposed Bush’s Tax cuts, proposed sweeping regulation on Freedom of Political Speech and treats any who disagree with him on immigration reform with disdain.
We need to reelect John McCain like we need a hole in our heads!
JD Hayworth is the only Republican in the State who does not tremble in fear of the retribution from John McCain. That speaks more about him than all the rest.
Go JD!
JD Hayworth says he wants to “get tough on immigration.” That’s code for saying he wants to bitch about immigration without actually doing anything about it. Hayworth is a joke. McCain is a great man. There is no choice.
It’s not a 2 man race…. It’s a 3 man race. We DO have an option in Jim Deakin. Anyone who plans to vote for JD may as well vote for McCain. As annoying as McCain can be, he’s a far sight better than JD who is the epitome of an opportunist. This guy doesn’t live in AZ and see either candidate on a regular basis. If we are going to get a new Senator, why not go to a REAL conservative, Jim Deakin. People, check him out before you make a decision. You may be pleasantly surprised.
A better choice is Jim Deakin. True conservative and not bogged down by the bad history of either.
McCain is destined for retirement in Nov. It doesn’t matter how much money he spends, or what the media pundits say, the plain & simple fact is the people of Arizona are sick of the BS and outright lies. McCain has done nothing for AZ, zip, nada, nothing, except try to pass legislation that will directly harm our state. He is a RINO of the 10th magnitude. JD Hayworth is nothing but a mediocre radio talker and will say what he thinks people want to hear, just like the used car salesman he really is, he has no more business being in the US Senate than a gerbil, in fact the gerbil would probably do a better job.
If you are tired of politics as usual, stop electing the usual politicians.
Jim Deakin The only logical choice, he is the only one running that has started and run a successful business, and understands what needs to be done to clean up the mess of the last 80 years of progressive corruption of government. He is also the only one running that has enough signatures to even get on the ballot, and is the only one that has true support from people of the Real Tea Party movement.
Jim Deakin for US Senate
Yes, Jim Deakin, http://www.jimdeakin.com and http://www.deakinvsmccain.com is the only candidate who is separated from all of the political mumbo jumbo that goes on back and forth with McCain/Hayworth. As a grassroots candidate, Mr. Deakin does not carry the baggage, or the huge campaign money demands, infighting, etc., along with the ultimate “you owe me’s” that McCain and Hayworth have and will generate through their campaigns.
As many people have indicated over and over, in order for true change to occur, in this race or many like it, incumbent and former incumbent candidates should not be part of the equation, particularly when grassroots movements have tried to make it clear that new, non-political candidates were what citizen voters were seeking.
As has been suggested, debates amongst the candidates may be the only way to clear up the dissension in the ranks for the truest candidate outcome, and that means including all four candidates, which include Mr. Deakin and the Independent candidate. No one should be pushed aside.
Numbers USA http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=AZ&VIPID=44 states it best in trying to rate Hayworth’s 12 year voting record on immigration by rating him “BLACK – Members in BLACK have broadly mixed records of voting for both higher and lower immigration, or they are new to Congress with few actions to gauge.”
During Hayworth’s 12 year incumbency he cast 70 or more votes on immigration so there is a defined gauge for Numbers USA to base a sound judgment/score on him where overall Numbers USA scored Hayworth at C+, which he shares with current and past Arizona Democrats/Progressives. McLight anyone?
When you look at the timing of Hayworth’s +/- votes as listed in Numbers USA: Hayworth voted + during the tail end of his incumbency when he was being challenged but voted Liberal/Progressive at the beginning of his incumbency, why?. He voted + (conservative) around 55 times (mostly towards the end) and – (progressive) around 16 times. So the question is how did Hayworth end up with such a score that places him with the democrats and progressives with so many more + (conservative) votes over 12 years? Sure glad Numbers USA doesn’t score like other conservative vote watchdog groups where McCain actually scores more conservative if you were to apply Numbers USA rating methods of looking past just the bill considering riders and earmarks where Hayworth clearly rates as a porker with how much of our money he spent? 600 million, 600 billion, 60 trillion? !
Anyway Hayworth knows the answers and soon others will wake up. So why did Hayworth hire you simcox, to add some more weight to his right. Did you inform him of your past? Does Hayworth know how far right you (simcox) are? Is this why Hayworth was so outspoken on his radio show – an attempt to cover up his congressional voting record? Is the large majority of Hayworth supporters in the same frame of mind as you?
Minuteman Chris Simcox’s past will haunt his GOP bid against McCain
By David Neiwert Thursday Apr 23, 2009 6:45am
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/minuteman-chris-simcoxs-pas...
Minutemen plan to bring attention to United States-Mexico border strife
By HEATHER SMATHERS/The Daily News
Published: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 1:12 AM MDT
http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles/2010/03/17/news/local/doc4b...
Thank you for posting that information, JPD,
Wasn’t able to get to both links, but I did access the Chris Simcox information by simply entering http://www.crooksandliars.com and putting his name, Chris Simcox, in the red search bar at the top right, and the article appeared. I was not able to get to the mohavedailynews Minutemen article.
The numberusa.com site can be accessed by simply going to numbersusa.com, then go to the menu at the top that says Congress, drop down to voting records, then click on Arizona, and then you will be taken to the page where the records are listed for past and present legislators for the state. J. D. Hayworth is listed in black for the inconsistent voting record(s) that you are referencing in your above post.
If you find more on the “Minutemen” article, please post. Thank you.
Where are the endorsements for JD Hayworth from the people he worked with in the House? Why are they not stepping up to back Mr Hayworth? 600 billion in earmarks is nothing to sneeze at. Amnesty is not the answer to our employment concerns or rising government costs. Amnesty is a naked power play by the left to swell the ranks of Democrat voters. Those in the GOP that fall for this trick in whatever guise, only hasten their own irrelevance. Jim Deakin is so far the only candidate who has gathered enough signatures from the Arizona public to put himself on the ballot. It doesn’t take very many, and if either McCain or Hayworth had any real substance, they wouldn’t have the problems that they do getting people to sign their petitions for the ballot. We need a businessman, and only Deakin fits that bill in this race. We need a military veteran, and JD Hayworth only has the record of voting to send others’ children to die when he didn’t even serve. Eagle Scout doesn’t count, JD. Vote Jim Deakin and make genuine changes, don’t submit to the harness of the GOP, Tea Party!
I have heard endorsement for Hayworth from Mark Levin, radio talk show host and author as well as ALIPAC, williamg@alipac.us (William Gheen, leader of ALIPAC)as well as Gun Owners of America.
I have not heard of any other Congressperson endorsing J. D. Hayworth. I have also tried to set Mark Levin (marklevin.show@citcomm.com) straight through umpteen emails about the “other Senate candidate in the race” (Jim Deakin), and I will do so again, and hopefully others will as well.
These groups and individuals need to be contacted in regard to the Hayworth spending record and illegal immigration (inconsistent) voting record.
After all is said and done, let’s make sure we unite and support the candidate that wins the primary. If not we are surely domed!
McCains time has come for him to retire. He has not been an advocate for Arizona at all. I doubt anyone can beat him but I surely will not vote for him in the primary. I can;t see November soon enough. I hope people turn out at the polls and vote in a whole new set of leaders but am afraid they will vote for a familiar name and not really know what they are voting for. Most people do not even have an idea of what has been happening in Congress this past couple months. SO sad.
So the fact that McCain is trying to steal more liberties than Obama is OK with this author. Confused at best, likely a McCain shill.
That’s a “fact”?
Yahh…if you say so.