The CD5 R forum

It wasn't as interesting as the R Senate debates this week because there were fewer direct attacks on other candidates.

Other than that, however, there wasn't any significant difference between the two forums - all of the R candidates are running against brown people and for big business.

"Highlights" in no particular order:

David Schweikert blamed his 2008 loss to Congressman Harry Mitchell on the "toxic" environment for conservative Republicans engendered by the passage of TARP and the financial sector bailouts (on the plus side, even though he probably didn't realize it at the time, the makes Schweikert one of the few Rs to admit that the blame for the economic meltdown falls upon the Republicans' failed economic ideology and upon the Rs' keepers on Wall St.)

Lee Gentry, also a 2008 candidate, attributed his somewhat lackluster showing (706 votes, fewer than his number of signatures on his nominating petitions) to "building momentum" and equated himself to Michael Jordan when he was cut from his high school hoops team but went on to greatness anyway.  I kid you not...

Chris Salvino wants to address issues along the U.S./Mexico border by building a high wall topped with razor wire and closely spaced blockhouses all along the border.  Sort of a 21st Century Maginot Line, something that didn't work so well for the French in 1940, but...

Susan Bitter Smith blamed Arizona's economic woes on undocumented immigrants, saying that getting rid of them will cure all.

All of them hate Health Care Reform, wanting to repeal the bill passed earlier this year and replace it with tort reform and "the free market."  Most of them mentioned tort reform even before they spoke about patients.

Misspeak of the night - Gentry with "we are a nation of native Americans and legal immigrants" and everybody else should take a number.  I'm pretty sure Native American groups, some of which are in CD5 (Salt River Pima/Maricopa Indian Community), might have something to say about that one...

In a series of yes/no questions, all of them opposed extending Unemployment Insurance benefits for the long-term unemployed, earmarks, the DREAM Act, tax credits/incentives for solar and renewable energy efforts (unless existing energy sources, and corporations, are protected) and favor a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage (except for Gentry, who pledged to fight for LGBT issues if elected.  It was the only serious break with Republican orthodoxy in the hour.)  One candidate, I'm not sure which, opposed a Constitution amendment, but only because he thought it would devalue Constitutional amendments, not because he supported the rights of freely consenting adults to enter the relationships that they choose.

In short, the hour was spent with each candidate swearing loyalty and obeisance to the main tenets of Republican thought, and swearing that they were more loyal and obedient that the others - brown people bad, President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Democrats in general bad, and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy good.

Normally, I can watch one of these things find a candidate who, if not exactly "good", is less bad than the others, but not here.  Other than Gentry's support of LGBT issues (and Gentry doesn't have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of making it through the primary), this bunch is reading from the same pages of the "more conservative than thou" playbook, a playbook that doesn't allow for candidates who will do anything for the districts that they are campaigning to "represent."

One interesting thing about the forum was something that *didn't* come up, something that could have afforded the assembled candidates the ability to separate themselves - abortion rights.

I don't know about the others, but Susan Bitter Smith has a pro-choice record.

It's the sort of thing that doesn't play well in Republican primaries.  Given that the Scottsdale Republic was the sponsor of the forum, that omission may be a clue as to which candidate they plan on endorsing.

They probably don't want to undercut their preferred choice, before she even has a chance to become the nominee.

Not that I'm a cynic or anything... :)

FEC Reports are in....

Others have covered this area already, but have tended to focus on their own CDs; the basic raw numbers from all CDs with active committees are included in this post.


Key - candidate - net contributions, individual contributions, PAC contributions, net expenditures, cash on hand. (Net contributions may not match the total of individual and PAC contributions due to refunds, candidate contributions to their own campaigns, or other reasons. Generally, any such variance isn't significant.

CD1 -

Ann Kirkpatrick (D), challenger - $328053.05, $218453.05, $109600.00, $125340.27, $668177.46

Howard Shanker (D), challenger - $33274.60, $33274.60, $0, $46603.04, $20972.36

Mary Kim Titla (D), challenger - $54104.75, $52466.36, $1638.39, $45039.94, $57385.88

Sydney Hay (R), challenger - $95033.73, $76518.73, $18515.00, $59959.65, $257408.09

Preston Korn (R), challenger - $2885.00, $2885.00, $0, $7362.48, $9173.96


CD2 -

John Thrasher (D), challenger - $8295.00, $7895.00, $0, $6599.59, $14207.90

Trent Franks (R), incumbent - $88386.00, $53261.00, $35625.00, $44885.27, $129774.83


CD3 -

Bob Lord (D), challenger - $233202.50, $161794.90, $73507.60, $158933.66, $706523.25

John Shadegg (R), incumbent - $536024.78, $421210.36, $140014.42, $121592.91, $1354246.30

The Shadegg campaign is gloating about their fundraising success during the April - June reporting period, but there's more than a little element of "whistling past the graveyard" in their press releases - Bob Lord is easily the strongest challenger, Dem or Rep, in the state and he's mounting a challenge to Shadegg that is far tougher than any challenge he's faced since entering Congress.

Note: The grand opening of the Lord campaign headquarters is this Saturday, July 19, at 4736 N. 44th St., Phoenix (just south of Camelback) from 11 a.m. - 1 p.m.


CD4 -

Ed Pastor (D), incumbent - $229493.13, $117377.88, $113515.25, $69158.20, $1428843.55


CD5 -

Harry Mitchell (D), incumbent - $335002.66, $224962.13, $113175.00, $85554.75, $1372464.22

David Schweikert (R), challenger - $162749.05, $162749.05, $0, $155851.16, $520990.10

Jim Ogsbury (R), challenger - $49783.24, $46783.24, $3000.00, $79435.55, $323442.10

Laura Knaperek (R), challenger - $34249.00, $37549.00, $0, $23200.05, $105520.79

Mark Anderson (R), challenger - $29278.14, $29278.14, $0, $25618.73, $68791.33

Susan Bitter Smith (R), challenger - $150379.51, $110603.51, $7000.00, $52363.67, $247945.89

The Republican challengers to Harry Mitchell have made some major bets on their abilities to emerge victoriously from the primary and then move on to defeat Mitchell - they've accumulated over $700K in loans and debts - Ogsbury and Schweikert at $250K each, Bitter Smith at more than $156K, and Knaperek has $50K in campaign debt. The only CD5 Rep who lists no campaign loans or obligations is Mark Anderson. In most cases, the loans/debt constitute a significant percentage (half or more) of the candidates' cash on hand totals.

Expect the following headline in mid-November - "Join the LD8 and LD17 Republicans for a joint campaign-debt retirement bake sale and car wash."

OK, OK, probably not... :))

Candie Dates (love that name!) at Sonoran Alliance has a post with some good graphs showing the CD5 challengers' financial positions.


CD6 -

Chris Gramazio (D), challenger - $3137.15, $3075.00, $0, 2539.24, $597.91

Jeff Flake (R), incumbent - $200035.00, $194835.00, $8800.00, $74097.13, $1091474.52


CD7 -

Raul Grijalva (D), incumbent - $125,398.00, $64,398.00, $61,000.00, $89,625.11, $171,043.21.


CD8 -

Gabrielle Giffords (D), incumbent - $562167.97, $381748.16, $181753.35, $156814.05, $2077845.80

Tim Bee (R), challenger - $390406.65, $307856.32, $79950.00, $229078.66, $687703.62


No reports that I could find from challengers Rebecca Schneider (D - CD6), Lee Gentry (R - CD5), Don Karg (R - CD4), or Joe Sweeney and Gene Chewning (Rs - CD7).

Withdrawn candidates - Annie Loyd (I - CD3).

Later!

Rejected Campaign Slogans From CD5

Time for a couple of posts worth of smack talk...this is the gentle one. :)

BTW - this concept is shamelessly stolen borrowed from the Arizona Report...


From the trash baskets of the various Republican candidates in CD5 who are competing for the chance to take on Harry Mitchell -

Lee Gentry - "Don't think of it as zero name recognition, think of it as low negatives."

Jim Ogsbury - "The 'legislator to lobbyist' career track historically leads to corruption; going from lobbyist to legislator means the opposite, right?

Mark Anderson - " 'Really Conservative But Sane*' * = when compared to some of the other state legislators from LD18"

Susan Bitter Smith - "That Darn Ogsbury! He beat me into the race, and he beat me to that slogan!"

Laura Knaperek - "I've lost to Harry twice already and my friends lost to his son for Tempe City Council earlier this year, but I can beat him this time. I promise."

David Schweikert - "It may have been only a county gig, but at least I wasn't indicted, sued, or faced possible disbarrment because of the way that I performed my duties."

:))