Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
A while back, I posted my opinion about the way the AZGOP elections were being run. I must have committed a faux pas because I was asked to take it down and I agreed. I like to think that this site is open to opinions that may not line up with the Administrators. So I am going to try this again after thinking about this since my first post.
I continue to be bothered by how the race for the AZGOP Chairman was conducted. I am disturbed because it seemed to be run much like the Republican party in general. If those who were called the power brokers at the state meeting are allowed to run this party and they run it like hooligans, where does the real conservative grassroots fit it?
Specifically, Robert Graham ran as a conservative. He trotted his mother out as proof because she graduated from Hillsdale College. It was unbelievable to me that anyone thought that was proof of anything. Graham didn't behave like a conservative throughout his run for that job. He didn't behave like that when he gave money to every McCain RINO in Arizona. He didn't behave that way when he ignored every conservative candidate ever. I got the information that was going around and I looked up the information presented and I found it to be true and correct. But the Graham campaign launched an attack campaign against those who were willing to put out information that anyone could find. Even at that, state committeemen who claimed to be conservatives went gaga over him despite what they knew but I guess they didn't want to believe. It reminded me so much of the way the Obama supporters drool over him, no matter the reality.
Now Graham has announced his "team." Are they conservatives? Are any of them grassroots? Is there a single tea party person in that office now since people like Ron Ludders and Rob Haney claim to fall in at least one of these areas and sure followed Graham around 24/7? These are the people and those like Royce Flora and Shane Wikfors and others who ran a Democrat-like campaign of slash and burn their opponents. Graham followed their lead on the campaign tactics. Are they the right people to be in charge of the AZGOP or even influential?
The answer to all of those questions is that, no, certainly not.
Here's his new AZGOP team:
Gretchen Congers Martinez Chief of Staff, who managed the effort to defeat prop 204 that was never in danger of passing but they are all too happy to take credit for it. Polls consistently showed support for that in the 30% range. She also formerly worked for Glenn Hamer, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, that supports Medicaid Expansion through their Foundation http://www.azchamber.com/news/view_article.cfm?ID=879 and is helping drive that expansion to victory, anything but a conservative group.
Chad Heywood, named Executive Director. Also given credit for defeating Prop 121 and 204. Let's be clear, neither of these propositions had a prayer of passing and even the people who worked so hard and paid so much to get Prop 121 on the ballot, the Democrats, didn't even support 121. Chad was involved with the Kirk Adams campaign, again, no conservative. It's a question as to how he feels about women given his comment on facebook: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/08/16/20120816nowicki08... - rude and crude and who would even think about such a remark? Chad also worked as Debuty Campaign Director, Flake campaign, and Director of Outreach for Jeff Flake, according to his linkedin page. Again, to believe he's a conservative is to require "a willing suspension of disbelief" quoting Hillary Clinton.
This is a problem for those who bought the line that Robert Graham was a conservative. Just because he trotted out his Hillsdale College graduate mother, our fellow state committeemen swooned over such a comment which means nothing. My child is a liberal. Offspring don't always walk in the footsteps of their parents.
I will pray for Graham to succeed but his press release says Heywood will run the AZGOP. I don't want them to succeed in returning the liberal side of the party to power. That is my great fear.
I'm certainly glad to "know" that propositions 121 and 204 were never in danger of passing. Just as there was no chance of Kyrsten Sinema ever becoming my Representative. The same Alinsky methodology was employed to promote Senima, 121 and 204. Now we're to understand the efforts of Graham associates and the AFP were really unnecessary after all.
By the way Propositions 121 and 204 were only defeated in the 2012 election cycle - look for them to arise again in the future. The left is always persistent if not always patient.
"But the Graham campaign launched an attack campaign against those who were willing to put out information that anyone could find."
As an active PC since my recent move to Arizona (2009) I was unaware of an attack campaign against persons (his campaign appeared to be issue oriented) by Graham and his followers - until there was an attack campaign (by Graham opponents) against persons - Graham, Vera Anderson, Ron Ludders and several other persons who I thought helped establish the Arizona Freedom Alliance and were or became my friends. These attacks on persons do permanent damage to both the persons and the issue, whereas opposition to and support for an issue damage neither the persons nor the issue.
Perhaps the question should be "is a position constitutional"? (as opposed to "is it conservative"?)
Frankly, wouldn't it be more beneficial to cooperate with persons who agree on an issue position than focus on those same persons' opposition and allegiances on other issues?
Your post is totally wrong headed and it's clear you never spent any time doing any research of your own. Polling by Magellan Polls showed as far back as early summer that neither of those propositions were going anywhere. Democrats were against 121 when they realized that the top two could be two Republicans when it happened in california. It's not likely to come back. You might be right about 204 but not many people are in the mood for more taxes. As for Senima, what does she have to do with this discussion? Please don't blur the issue.
You are not right about any attacks either. When the proven truth is put out, that is not an attack. That's a warning, a caution sign. Why don't you spend a few minutes online looking those up. I did and everything panned out through government mandated campaign reports. I saw nothing that could have been called attacks or gossip. At least not against Graham. When the untruthful person has his team go after the people who know the truth and have the courage to tell the truth, that is an attack. I would like to know one original issue Graham ran on. His issues were retreads of issues everyone knows have been on the table since the tea party start-ups. We will soon know what he's capable of but I think the point in this post is that Graham's main issue was how conservative he is and so far, he's proven to be a moderate at best and something of a chameleon.
Maybe you should think about this-Graham didn't really have any opponents until after some pretty greasy facts surfaced. We insist on vetting candidates for every other office -that was the original intent of the tea parties- but then go after anyone who vets this man. Vetting= finding out the facts the candidates don't tell us as in "to appraise, verify, or check for accuracy, authenticity, validity," and "Vetting is the process of performing a background check on someone before ... " as in before voting for them. Only a handful of people were willing to buck the tide to do that. three cheers and a couple of medals for them. Someone needs to start showing some guts. As they say, if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything. That's what happened in this election.
Now, let's hope something good will come of it. In the meantime, don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.
The frustration I have with criticism of Robert Graham's campaign to be AZGOP Chairman is that such criticism focuses on accusations that Robert Graham (who obviously won the election) deceitfully posed as a conservative and, therefore, didn't deserve to win.
After the experience of Tom Morrisey's Chairmanship, (who was touted as a "true conservative", but caved in to the Romney - the "Obama Light" candidate - machine) that allowed Romney supporters to run the State Convention; Robert Graham came across as a campaign professional who could deliver and who had delivered victory at the polls. As a PC and a State Committeeman "conservative" credentials no longer were as important to me as being able to run the GOP according to just and fair bylaws. Robert Graham struck me as someone far more capable of doing so than Morrisey, who had been the apparent GOP choice to run for re-election while Doug Little wasn't yet on the horizon.
The challenge Doug Little's campaign faced was to convince State Committeemen like myself that Little could bring the funding, harmony and victory that Morrisey couldn't deliver better than Graham. But the Little campaign chose to impugn Graham, rather than compete with Graham on ability and experience. The issues that drove the campaign were evenhanded bylaw creation/enforcement, fundraising ability, Party governance, getting out the vote, harmony and victory for GOP candidates after the primary. Little's appeal to "conservatism" sounded too much like Morrisey and with the fresh experience of Morrisey, more ideology than ability.
Now that Graham won the election, we need to concentrate on State sovereignty - nullification of Obamacare, Patriot Acts I and II, NDAA military deployment against Americans in America, Agenda 21, Domestic Drones, government unions, Homeland Security/TSA, Common Core, Gun grabbers, the U.N., foreign aid, the Federal Reserve with its fiat currency, federal funding in all forms. Graham should be our agent, servant and hired gun in getting these things done. He is not doing so hot, is he? And, yes, you and Jan F. have some justification in saying "we told you so and why" or more accurately "who".
But "we told you so and who" doesn't hold Graham's feet to the fire. We need to put the pressure on Graham and we've got to do it now, before the next election cycle gets into full swing. Starting with opposing Brewer's Medicaid expansion.
I've read through these messages and I don't find any place that says RobertGraham does not deserve to be AZGOP chairman. The impression I get is that he is not what he says he is. We see a lot of that in politicians. I also did not see anyone say "I told you so" even though it's entirely possible they did tell us so. Somebody did.
My question to Mr. Fiedler is this - do you personally know Tom Morrissey? Did you ever have an indepth discussion with Morrissey? Who told you he 'caved in' to Romney - did you confront Morrissey on this? Because this sounds a lot like piling on to me and parroting what his campaign whispered to TP members. Let's be real - our president appeared appealing to millions who took the word of the candidate and the media about who he is. Why would Republicans who rail against Obama turn around and do what Obama supporters did? Do we never learn? I'm NOT saying that Graham is anything like Obama. I'm saying those who voted for Graham are eerily like those who voted for Obama. It's the responsibility of every voter to do some due diligence, not just listen to some tea party leader ooze platitudes over a candidate when said tea party leader expected to benefit from that candidate's election.
You are partially right about the Little campaign. His handlers failed to write up the quintessential campaign speech with all the catchy buzz words and empty promises. I heard Graham speak probably 4 maybe 5 times and it was the same speech every time. Did you ever ask Graham why he could not raise any money for his own campaign for Governor in 2010? I never saw any proof that either candidate could raise money. (Don't say he raised $11million for California because he had nothing to do with that money except send it off to CA. and the same for the money that went to the props) It was just their word so there is just as much reason to think Little could raise money (he did say that at the debate and the state meeting which is all Graham did - say it).
You, Mr. Fiedler, are right again, people were in the mood for some glitzy cash after Morrissey. Little did not win and Graham has not raised any money. He did say to many at the state meeting that he had "checks in hand" ready to deposit as soon as he was elected. We need to see a financial statement to see if those checks were deposited. Since you are a follower of his, would you find out and report back? It would be step one in "holding his feet to the fire."
I, too, hope Graham does well for the Republican party. The stakes are serious. This means that people have to shake off their love affair with Graham and start to see the person and Graham needs to stop being a baby going on internet radio and spending his time vilifying his Republican opponents long after he won. It makes him look bad, really bad. He is the Chairman and he must meet a higher standard than that.
This pertains to the discussion on this page. You may have heard about Jeff Vath, the blogger under the name of politicomafioso, seeminly a popular - depending on whether you were the conservative target - blog that was - is - in support of McCain against conservatives. He called himself part of the McCain mafia and was a big supporter of McCain, Flake and all other politicos who believe amnesty good, Constitution bad. Mr. Vath died this week and a story was in the Phx New Times. The reason I am posting this here is because of the discussion about whether or not Robert Graham is a conservative or not because conservatives nearly always take exception to what McCain does and says. If you believe the PNT, Robert Graham was a dear friend of Vath, the #1 supporter of McCain, and is quoted in this article. Why would Graham be quoted as opposed to someone like Governor Brewer or Jeff Flake? Like Graham, Vath supported all the McCain candidates and chewed up and spit out anyone who didn't. Even in this article.
Here is the link to the article http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2013/03/politico_mafiosos_...