Are McCain and Hayworth both equally flawed?

by Don Hank

A recent article by Jesse Mathewson tried to show that maybe McCain and Hayworth are both wrong for Arizona. He’s right about McCain. But he uses a now largely discounted scandal and an obscure vote on Singapore free trade to cast doubt on Hayworth.

Now in all fairness, Jesse has written a fair number of articles with genuinely conservative content. However, he has consistently supported Jim Deakin, whose chances to defeat McCain seem remote, while Hayworth is fairly well — if precariously — positioned.

Further, Mathewson’s attempt to equate John McCain and J.D. Hayworth is definitely skewed if you consider the ratings of Hayworth and McCain given by the American Conservative Union (ACU).

In 2005, for example, ACU assigned a grade of 65 to McCain and 100 to Hayworth.

In 2006, it was 80 to 100 in favor of Hayworth.

I don’t know about you, but if I were a college admissions officer considering 2 students and one had McCain’s near-failing to lackluster grades and the other had Hayworth’s top notch grades, I would choose Hayworth in a heartbeat.

Of course, there is this other guy Deakin, who may be ok. But how can we know at this late date? By what he says he’ll do? Remember how Obama sweet-talked us? Are you ready to vote for an unknown when you have a hard-working tried and proven A student waiting in the wings?

JD Hayworth obviates all other alternatives this year. After all, given the state of the polls today, a vote for Deakin is probably a vote for John McCain and we can’t afford another 6 years of waffling and pandering to illegal aliens.

On the other hand, Deakin has a chance to show Arizonans he has real character. By throwing his weight toward JD Hayworth, should he decide to do so, and ridding America of a dangerous RINO once and for all. That in itself could be the start of a brilliant political career.

Don Hank

 

Hayworth’s record:

http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2005/2005House.htm

McCain’s:

http://www.conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2006/2006senate

Candidate backed by Palin and Jan Brewer loses in Georgia:

http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/immigration-patriot-nathan

This shows that the public is now more discriminating than ever. If Palin and Brewer can’t persuade voters in Georgia, then there must be a good reason.

Could it be that people there know they are just playing politics?

How long will a Palin endorsement be worth anything? How long before it becomes an albatross?

Arizona, are you paying attention?

Did new Al Qaeda leader smuggle dangerous materials across the southern border?

If the below-linked story is true, this happened back when McCain was pushing really hard for amnesty for illegals and was doing his best to keep from building the fence.

Anyone who votes for McCain for Senate is putting this country at risk.

And anyone who votes for a spoiler (anyone other than JD Hayworth) at this late date is in effect voting for John McCain.

Some will say “this sounds personal.” It is personal. I spent many many man hours contacting congress and writing blog after blog during the last amnesty push. Thanks to none other than John McCain.

We won by the skin of our teeth, but McCain left a lasting impression on me as the man who would not listen to the people. I have no faith in him.

http://www.abrieflookattomorrow.com/newslinks/index.php?showtopic=5645

Don Hank

The fisherman who became the catch

by Don Hank

Hammer, the poster who says I am repugnant, keeps coming back to this site. His latest comment at the article “Is ‘gay marriage’ a historical imperative?”  (http://laiglesforum.com/2010/08/11/is-gay-marriage-a-historical-imperative/) shows that he doesn’t read my articles before posting, so I will address those of you who do.

Here is part of his very long comment:

“If you want to cite Genesis as the invention of marriage, then be prepared for people who accept different holy books than you to cite their own mythologies.” [Hammer calls himself a “Christian” but now seems to be saying his own religious canon is a book of mythology–DH]

Those of you who read what I wrote, know I never mentioned Genesis. I mentioned natural languages. From that it follows, however, that I believe in natural law, something first endorsed by a non-Christian, Cicero.

To be even clearer, I wrote the below-linked article about natural societies, which shows an important, and surprising, fact: the more a society follows natural law, the closer it resembles a biblically based society. Which is precisely why Hammer, who doesn’t read, thinks that anyone endorsing natural law is basing his/her endorsement on the Bible. Here is that article:

http://laiglesforum.com/2007/11/29/those-prudish-non-christians-and-their-family-values/

I fully acknowledge that God, the Creator of the universe, gave us all the ability to “read” the universe like a book and arrive at natural law with some natural wisdom (common sense), a faculty that homosexual activists and other leftists, unfortunately, do not enjoy, because they deny the Creator. Just as there is no incompatibility between Christianity and science, there is also none between Christianity and natural law, because natural law is based on basic scientific principles, whose Creator we acknowledge.
Further, Hammer seems to suggest that other religions of traditional societies following natural laws have a definition that differs from the one I set forth, namely, the union of persons of different sexes. Hammer’s implication is, of course, nonsense. No such traditional religion, whose definition of marriage includes unions betwee people of the same sex, exists.

Hammer also says he is here at my blog just for the fun of it. Yet I have never seen a man more deadly serious in my life. His constant comments at this blog bear all the earmarks of an obsession.

If I were a “gay” activist like him and truly believed in “gay” “marriage” as a Hegelian historical imperative, I would be out dancing in the streets over the new ‘law’ by fiat, sipping my chablis and ignoring what insignificant bloggers like me have to say. After all, he said that his kind feels a “revulsion” for us and that they “pity” us.” Oh, and in this latest communication, he compares me to the Taliban, adding “terrorist” to the list of epithets already bestowed upon me.

This being the case, what could be the origin of Hammer’s obsession with engaging such a repulsive person as me (a hater, bigot, nazi, and now a terrorist), worthy of nothing but pity? Think about it.

He is like a fisherman whose hook has gotten snagged on a log. Yet instead of cutting the line, the fisherman tugs at it day and night hoping to dislodge it.

Of course, the hook just sets itself deeper and deeper and deeper.

The fisherman, in hopes of catching a fish, seems to have caught himself.

Further reading:

Insane judge ORDERS gays to marry:

http://weeklyworldnews.com/politics/20235/judge-orders-all-gays-to-be-married/