Remember what happens when a moderate candidate is forced to the right.

It looks like the Arizona State Republican Convention will be a big yawn. The state party has succeeded in so tightly scripting the process that there will be no serious alternative to the Unity Slate, which will not be revealed until delegates arrive on Saturday morning. More importantly the two plausible factions that could mount any kind of serious challenge have not been able to unify.

The disaffected conservatives mostly in CD 3 and the small but fervent Ron Paul faction have been unable to agree on one unified strategy according to reports. We have lost some of our better sources within the conservative camp due to links that one of our writers has with the state party and the Ron Paul group is tighter than a secret society. Nonetheless we are getting a few reports from contacts on the fringe and it sounds like each side will be proposing their own separate slates. Math must not be their strong point since neither has the numbers alone to accomplish anything. The conservatives are stuck on the pro-life issue and the anti-war stand of the Paulistas does nothing for the far-right.

Four years ago the big news was the election for National Committeeman but this year the two national positions are uncontested.

Bring a pillow.

     The Arizona Democratic party has a hit piece video on You Tube slamming Tim Bee. At first I thought is was pretty devastating. After watching it a second time I realized that it is completely void of substance. Then I noticed that it is incorrect. The screen shot above says Steve Forbes ran in 2004. He ran in 1996 and in 2000, not 2004. It is not a huge issue but when you are attacking someone it helps to get your facts straight. If they got such a simple fact wrong where else did they error?

     Why is it such a big deal that Bee had a fundraiser in Phoenix when Giffords does the same thing?

A great editorial in the Wall Street Journal today written by Pat Toomey, President of the Club for Growth, which is in the same spirit as Sonoran Alliance’s approach to intra-political struggles. Even our own Congressman, Jeff Flake, is mentioned as one of today’s national conservative leaders. 

Here is the reprint:

In Defense of RINO Hunting
By Pat Toomey

The Club for Growth Political Action Committee has long been attacked for intervening in Republican primaries and targeting the party’s most economically liberal incumbents.

In 2000, Pennsylvania Rep. Jim Greenwood called the Club “cannibals.” When the Club ran ads against Ohio Sen. George Voinovich and Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe for resisting President Bush’s 2003 tax cut, Karl Rove deemed the ads “counterproductive.”

And Newt Gingrich, the man who ushered in a conservative Republican majority in 1994, once denounced the Club. “Their strategy is explicitly wrong,” he said. “The key is to elect more Republicans and have a bigger majority and be more inclusive.”

Now comes Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, the man charged with rebuilding the GOP majority in the House. In a New York Times Magazine article, he denounced the Club for Growth’s involvement in a special election in Ohio’s fifth congressional district.

“The problem I have with the Club is I think they’re stupid,” Mr. Cole said. “They spend more money beating Republicans than Democrats.”

Republicans would be better off, the argument goes, if the Club PAC spent its money targeting Democrats instead of liberal Republicans. This is the argument of politicians who care more about maintaining power than using that power to implement conservative policies.

Thus comes the demand for an uncompromising obeisance to the bottom line: Elect as many Republicans as possible, regardless of how they will vote once in office.

It is for this reason that challenges to incumbents are deemed sacrilegious, no matter how far the incumbent has strayed from conservative principles. And it is for this reason that party leaders defend some of the most liberal incumbents, also known as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), and assail the Club PAC for helping to elect true conservatives.

In 2000, Rep. Tom Davis, then the chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, denounced the Club for supporting Scott Garrett’s challenge to New Jersey Rep. Marge Roukema. Mr. Cole and the entire Oklahoma establishment backed Tom Coburn’s primary opponent in the 2004 Senate race, Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys, viewing Mr. Coburn as too conservative to be electable. Led by President Bush, the GOP cavalry rallied behind liberal Arlen Specter in 2004, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Joe Schwarz of Michigan in 2006.

Mr. Chafee, you may recall, is the same senator who refused to vote for the president in 2004, and voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and Justice Sam Alito’s nomination.

This year, Mr. Gingrich and conservative favorite former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele stumped for liberal incumbent Rep. Wayne Gilchrest against conservative state Sen. Andy Harris in a primary. Mr. Gilchrest was also defended by the Service Employees International Union. He lost by 10 points.

Let us take a moment to consider how these liberal Republicans are serving the GOP today. Mr. Specter, just in the past year, joined Democrats in voting for “card check” (which allows unions to organize without holding a secret ballot election), for increasing the minimum wage, for expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and for the bloated farm bill.

Mr. Chafee, who was defeated, switched his party affiliation to Independent and has endorsed Barack Obama for president. Following his loss to conservative Tim Walberg in the 2006 primary, Rep. Schwarz of Michigan backed a state-level tax hike, and threatened to run against Mr. Walberg as a Democrat. Mr. Gilchrest has hinted recently that he will endorse the Democratic nominee for his seat. All four of these pols were heralded by the Republican establishment as genuine conservatives who would go to bat for the party when it mattered.

Conversely, many of the Republican candidates the Club for Growth’s members have supported over the years are now leaders in the conservative movement and favorites among the party’s grass roots. Sens. Coburn and Jim DeMint and Reps. Scott Garrett, Jeff Flake, John Campbell, Jeb Hensarling, Tim Walberg and Mike Pence are just some of the brave leaders who have led the fight for limited government and greater economic freedom.

Winning for the sake of winning is an excellent short-term tactic, but a lousy long-term strategy. Just look at the consequences of the 2006 congressional elections, when the GOP lost control of both houses of Congress.

A Republican majority is only as useful as the policies that majority produces. When those policies look a lot like Democratic ones, the base rightly questions why it should keep Republicans in power. As the party gears up for elections in the fall, it ought to look closely at the losses suffered under a political strategy devoid of principle. Otherwise, it can look forward to a bad case of déjà vu.

Mr. Toomey, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, is president of the Club for Growth.

     Mark the date. Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion agrees with Sonoran Alliance about our Joe Higgins story. Just to clarify, Ted pledges that it “will be the first and last time.” We will sleep much better knowing it will not happen again.

     Ted looks behind the scene for the motivation to falsely link Higgins to the far-right. He comes up with Ray Carroll. We are still trying to square the two contradictory talking points that Higgins has “no chance of winning” and “he must get out of the race.” Can they please make up their mind.

Here is the Tucson Citizen’s take on the election.

On Tuesday Marilyn Zerull filed her signatures and $5 forms with the Arizona Secretary of State. One of the other campaigns in the LD 26 House race has been touting their media anointed “front runner” status. Marilyn will now focus on taking her message directly to voters and does not have to worry about gathering signatures or raising money. Sounds like the status of this race just changed.

Marilyn has been sending out weekly updates about the campaign. You can sign up for these short but informative updates by filling out the form below.

We are receiving information that the phone calls to delegates to the Arizona State Republican Convention have begun. It would be interesting to ask who is behind the poll and how they got your number.

To all state delegates - you do not have to answer these polls but if you do please leave feedback in our comment section.

     Michael Bryan at Tucson’s Blog for Arizona has written some good stories in the past several months. He was front and center in the election integrity issue. But he has drifted pretty far afield with his latest story about Pima Supervisor District 1. He claims his “deep throat” told him that District 1 Republican candidate Joe Higgins was recruited by Al Melvin. The story is almost laughable on the face. Mr. Bryan claims the conservatives have declared “war on the establishment, pro-business, moderate Republicans.” One problem. Higgins is the pro-business Republican in the District 1 race.

     Melvin and Higgins run in such different circles it’s not even funny. First Melvin has been highly focused on winning his own race, both the primary and general. He is not teaming up with any other candidates this cycle and has been busy walking each day of the week. Second, Melvin does not even live in Pima and rarely talks about county politics. You are much more likely to hear him discussing state or national issues. Higgins lives so far on the eastern edge of LD 26 that if he took 10 steps out his door he would be in LD 30.

     Melvin has a small force of very dedicated volunteers that get his $5 forms for him in about 10 minutes. Not exactly what Higgins will need to challenge the incumbent in a non clean elections race. Our sources indicate that Higgins has some good support from small to medium businesses and has the backing of a Rodney Glassman fan. Definitely not the Al Melvin crowd.

     Michael’s story is so off base one has to wonder who his “deep throat” source is and what is his agenda. Maybe all the cigar smoke and drinking has gotten to some people. By attacking Higgins, Michael is in essence defending the anointed Republican incumbent who is backed by the entrenched big money Republicans in town. I wonder how Michael’s take on the risks to Tim Bee’s campaign sits with the moderates who obviously planted this story.

     Joe Higgins is an interesting candidate who does not fit any of the stereotypes that Michael assigns to him. He is running against an establishment incumbent who has stayed in office a few too many years. If any of Michael’s rant is true we are impressed with how Melvin got the story planted on Tedski’s blog, Rum, Romanism and Rebellion. We never knew Melvin and Prezelski were that close. But, hey they are all Catholic so next week Michael will be writing that it is a conspiracy out of Rome.

Here is the Star’s early take on the race.

In 2000, just before stopping her column to run for Congress against Jeff Flake, Susan Bitter Smith wrote the following article calling on candidates running for office to, in her words, “stick to the discussion of issue differences” and, “not to succumb to the temptation of personal vilification of their opponents.” Bitter-Smith continued with a clarion call of sorts to “challenge all of us to show (George Will) that we do have self-restraint.” 

Here is Susan Bitter-Smith’s column as it appeared on January 7, 2000 in The Arizona Republic: 

Editor’s note: This is Susan Bitter Smith’s final Community column as she runs for Congress in District 1. In fairness to all political candidates, the Community editorial page routinely discontinues columns by politicians in the year they run for office.

“Because negative campaigning provides the biggest bang for the political buck, it has become so incessant that good politicians are coarsened and coarse people are drawn to politics.” - George F. Will

Election season 2000 has begun, with the Presidential Preference Primary and local municipal elections almost upon us. Signs are already going up, and television ads are beginning to hit the airwaves.

Scottsdale will share in this election fervor as it experiences a hot race for mayor and for three City Council seats. We know that we will have a new mayor and at least two new council members, because several incumbents are moving on.

What we don’t know yet is what the tenor of the campaign will be.

Will the election debate focus on issue differences and leadership styles? Or will it degenerate to the negative campaigning that George Will believes has become “incessant” in American politics?

“Incivility is a consequence of what Congress (or the City Council) is and does. Congress (or the City Council), a representative institution, represents the nation’s increasing vulgarity and declining self-restraint.” - Will.

Scottsdale is no different from the rest of the country. We have seen recent elections, both on issues and for elected office, reduced to personal pettiness and inappropriate attack. Is this because election behavior is representative of a general decline in the country, as Will believes, or is it simply that negativity works?

We certainly have had recent examples of last-minute personal attacks on candidates being successful in scuttling attempts to get elected. We fortunately have had other examples of such tactics accomplishing exactly the opposite. Although Will may be accurate in pointing to a less restrained public, we may also have a more educated public, one less inclined to jump to an ill-founded conclusion without adequate justification.

Still, the prospect of attack campaigning remains. A lot is at stake, with the future direction of Scottsdale on the line. There may be some who even believe that because this is such an important election, they must win, regardless of the cost.

Often the media plays right into the hands of such candidates by responding to campaign ploys of shopping stories about the opposition, complete with ready sources for the reporter or by repeating stories shared with them by” concerned citizens” without properly following up to check their veracity.

It is difficult to know when to pursue such sources of information, given the unfortunate nature of today’s politics.

I, for one, don’t happen to believe that the “end justifies the means “when it comes to campaigning. I do continue to believe that the public can differentiate between legitimate messages of issue differences and gratuitous personal attacks.

I challenge the candidates in this election cycle in Scottsdale, and future election cycles, to stick to discussion of the issue differences and their vision for the future and not to succumb to the temptation of personal vilification of their opponents.

I further challenge the media to be selective in their response to “attack” politics. I know it may appear to be more exciting to talk about “blood feuds” between candidates, but help them help themselves by sticking to covering the debate on the issues.

More importantly, I challenge all of us to show George Will that we do have “self-restraint.” Let us not respond to negative campaigning. Let us demand a discussion on the topics of the day and the leadership of our candidates. If we, the voters, set the example, then our candidates will have to follow our lead.

Let us reverse the trend and show our candidates that the qualities we really want in our representative government are sound logic, honest evaluations, an appreciation of our history, and a commitment to remember who the boss is - the electorate!

Of course, as political observers would soon see, Bitter-Smith, according to reports, wasn’t quite willing to follow her own advice. Here is the article that was published on August 31, 2000 in The Arizona Republic:

‘SLEAZEBALL POLITICS’ IN DISTRICT

Congressional candidate Susan Bitter Smith’s campaign assembled personal information on a rival, then delivered it to still another rival.

With that, the focus of Arizona’s hottest congressional race, the Republican contest in District 1, has become dirty tricks and integrity.

Tom Liddy, who received the information and blew the whistle, charged Wednesday that Bitter Smith offered it to him in hopes he would use it to try to disparage the other candidate.

Liddy accused Bitter Smith of breaking the clean-campaign pledge for which she had been the leading proponent.

Bitter Smith countered that the entire episode represented a ploy by Liddy.

She said that although she regrets not throwing out the materials when they came to her, she passed them along to Liddy because “I didn’t care about them one way or another” and Liddy had asked for such material.

Liddy’s retort: “It didn’t happen. Period.”

Although Liddy never revealed who was the subject of the documents, it became clear in the turmoil that it was Jeff Flake.

Asked whether there is anything in his background that could give rivals ammunition of a personal nature, Flake said, “There is nothing.”

He said that he had no idea what was in the documents and that he will continue to focus his campaign on issues of taxation and education.

“This is sleazeball politics at its worst,” Flake said. “It’s everything you’d expect (of Bitter Smith) given Susan’s willingness to say anything to get elected.”

The documents have been destroyed. Liddy and Flake jointly shredded them Wednesday without Flake’s inspecting them.

That leaves Bitter Smith, Liddy and East Valley Tribune reporter Mark Flatten, who had been summoned by Liddy to look through them, with an inkling of what they contained.

In an article Wednesday, Flatten said “the Tribune’s inspection … did not ascertain any financial wrongdoing.”

Bitter Smith said the package amounted to about 45 pages of “public documents” concerning real estate dealings. She said campaign volunteers, whom she declined to identify, brought her the information several weeks ago and she set it aside.

“In retrospect, I should have tossed them out, and I regret not having done so,” she said Wednesday in a statement

Liddy, however, said a 108-page package was waiting at the door when his campaign office opened Saturday morning. He said the “financial and personal background” information was thorough and appeared to have been compiled professionally.

He said he inspected the material only enough to verify that it was documents described to him Friday in a surprise phone call from Bitter Smith.

Liddy said he accepted her offer of documents because he wanted proof her campaign had been trying to gather “dirt” on candidates in the Congressional District 1 race.

Liddy said a private investigator told him about turning down a request months ago to develop background information on Liddy and a fourth candidate in the race, Sal DiCiccio.

The investigator, speaking on condition that he not be identified, confirmed Liddy’s account. He said the person who contacted him was affiliated with the Bitter Smith campaign.

Bitter Smith said that the person identified by the investigator has no connection to her campaign and that she has not sought anyone to conduct personal back grounding.

The race, in which Bitter Smith, Liddy and a fifth candidate, Bert Tollefson, have signed a pledge to keep personal attacks and innuendo out of their campaigns, is for the GOP nomination to succeed U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon. The district covers parts of the East Valley, south Scottsdale, Ahwatukee and central Phoenix.

Bitter Smith said she had not authorized anyone to deliver the material to Liddy, but said it was done by a campaign volunteer directed by her staff. She would not identify any of the individuals.

She said that she had no idea what materials Liddy might have shown to the media or Flake, and suggested that Liddy was “attempting to smear another candidate” by distorting what her campaign provided.

“Tom (Liddy) was intending to try to hit not only Jeff (Flake) but myself by contacting a reporter with what to all accounts people believe to be nonsensical information,” she said.

Bitter Smith said she agreed to turn over the material when she spoke by phone with Liddy about another matter. She said he had been asking for such material for months, an assertion Liddy strongly denied.

Liddy said he was “profoundly offended” by the suggestion that he would resort to a personal attack.

“(She) wanted me to do her dirty work by slinging her mud,” he said.

He insisted that Bitter Smith had made the phone call and unilaterally offered the material.

Keith Woods, a campaign worker in Liddy’s office, said he was a few feet from the candidate during Bitter Smith’s call and could vouch for Liddy’s description of what the conversation entailed.

Special thanks to one of our fan readers down on the corner of Van Buren and 2nd Street.

     The Trent Humphries campaign is hosting a public forum on healthcare tomorrow. The location is 13101 N. Oracle Road at the Northwest Medical Urgent Care facility and begins at 7:00 pm. For more details click here. Come here about Trent’s plans to improve health care in Arizona.

We’ve watched the Republican field take shape for Congressional District 5 over the last few months.  None of the candidates getting in really surprised us – except one potential candidate.  Susan Bitter Smith, political gadfly, and resident Republican liberal has now announced her intent to run.

For those of you not familiar with Susan Bitter Smith, or as Benson so famously referred to her in 2000 – Susan “Gutter” Smith. She has run for nearly everything under the sun.  Included in this list are two failed runs for Congress, Scottsdale City Council, the Central Arizona Water Board, and even the school board of tiny Balsz School District.  She has had some success, she served one term on the City Council before being defeated, and she does currently serve on the water board and the Balsz School Board.  However, she is probably most notorious for her 2000 run for Congress where she was alleged  to have hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on Jeff Flake and then tried to pass it off to Tom Liddy.  Of course this gambit soon broke down into a she-said he-said farce between Bitter Smith and Liddy, ultimately culminating with both candidates taking a newspaper sponsored lie-detector test.  

Bitter Smith is also well known for being a proud liberal in the Republican Party.  As far back as 1988 Bitter Smith was quoted about her support for abortion and her strong support of – get this- the Equal Rights Amendment.  Bitter Smith is/was also an ardent Wish Lister.  Bitter Smith is also “pro union” and gladly accepted support from the teachers unions, the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare PAC (a Democrat-Union front group that has spent millions against Republicans), Wish List, and yes even Slade Mead. 

On the employment side, Bitter-Smith is currently the president of the Arizona/New Mexico Cable association and also runs a political consulting firm with her husband on the side.  In that capacity, Bitter-Smith recently gained notoriety for recommending a firm to her developer client who according to reports, harassed petition gatherers in Scottsdale trying to force a referendum of a city council decision favorable to her client.  Now, we’re all for protecting the property rights of developers, harassing petition gatherers is a seemy underside to political consulting that does not look very good for a candidate trying to run for Congress to be involved with. 

The FEC also found reason to believe that Bitter-Smith’s campaign violated campaign laws by soliciting donations off other candidates campaign reports – a big no no. 

On the hypocrisy front, Bitter-Smith also wrote an article calling for “clean campaigns” just before she ran for Congress and gained the “gutter Smith” nickname.

So in sum, you have a liberal stalking horse, proudly pro-abortion politician with the nickname of “Gutter Smith” who recommended a firm who according to reports was harassing petition gatherers.  Sounds like a real winner. 

Update to Original Post: Since this posting occurred at 10:12 AM, a new website went up at http://www.susanguttersmith.com/. Sonoran Alliance and its writers categorically deny involvement with this website although we are amazed by the amount of time it took for this website to appear.

We got some heat from our readers over round two. The contestant in this round really went all out to earn a slot in this contest.

We applaud the chairman, staff, and volunteers of the state party for their hard work preparing for the convention. Having said that, today’s contestant could justifiably have been removed from the ballot for his actions in 2006.

In the middle of a tough campaign for one of Arizona’s congressional seats I very publicly endorsed the Democrat. While endorsing the Democrat I harshly attacked and ridiculed the Republican candidate. I am on the ballot as a delegate to the Republican National Convention. I am a former statewide office holder. Who am I?

     First term congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords spent a whopping $234,000 on franked mail last year. Great to see Daniel Scarpinato revisit the issue. We were getting lonely talking about this waste of taxpayer funds. This from a politician with about $1.5 million in cash on hand.

A real shocker at the Kentucky Derby as Eight Belles finishes second, collapses and is then euthanized on the track due to two broken ankles. Eight Belles was the only filly in the race finishing right behind Big Brown.

Yesterday when asked who Hillary Clinton was backing to win, she replied, why the only filly in the race, Eight Belles. Barack Obama chose Colonel John as his pick with Big Brown to show.

One can only imagine the political pundits all over this one.

Thank you to one of our readers for sending in this amusing photo seen in front of a home. (No, we are not endorsing either candidate.)

Our first contestant must have been a little too obvious. One of our readers got the correct answer on the first comment.

We hope this contestant will be a little more challenging. First let’s go over the rules once more. The contest is only open to Republicans on the national delegate ballot who have donated to and/or endorsed Democrats with the last 24 months. Endorsing a RINO does not qualify for this contest.

I gave $250 to Ed Pastor in November 2006 and $500 to David Obey in 2007. I live in Paradise Valley and am a registered lobbyist in Arizona. I am on the ballot as a delegate to the Republican National Convention. Who am I?

Phoenix has made the top 10 U.S. News list of Greenest Places to Retire. The list is based on the amount of park area available to resident.

Didn’t find Seattle on the list.

     In July 2007 we analyzed a misleading Udall Center study about the economic effect of illegal immigration. One of the multiple problems with the report was the lack of accounting for the economic effect of remittance of wages to the country of origin by illegal immigrants. This is money subtracted from the economy that would have mostly remained in the U.S. if earned by legal immigrants fully invested in the U.S. experience.

     A recent report by the Inter-American Development Bank estimates the remittance will total $45,900,000,000 (yes that’s Billions.) This is the remittance figure just for the Americans and does not cover the whole world. The bank report does not disclose what portion of this is from legal / illegal immigration. The report does detail the loss of economic wealth state by state.

Previous stories on this topic.

Immigration Study deeply Flawed
Update on flawed Udall Center Study
Illegal immigration costs AZ workers $1.4 Billion