(We) Are The News

In the background of the Durham picture is JD Hayworth from Arizona???

Post 11778406 View on 8kun

Interdasting?

In the background of the Durham picture is JD Hayworth from Arizona???

sure looks a lot like him.

ask him about if this Durham is a real dude or not

and how he feels about McCain

PB

>>11778316

>>11778291

>>11778270

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Hayworth

John David Hayworth Jr. (born July 12, 1958) is an American television host and former politician. He served as a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 2007 from Arizona's 5th Congressional District. He currently hosts Newsmax Prime, a television news/talk prime time show that airs weekdays at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Newsmax TV. Previously, he hosted a conservative talk radio program on KFYI in Phoenix until January 2010, when he resigned due to his run for the U.S. Senate.

A graduate of North Carolina State University, Hayworth anchored sports reports for three television stations during the 1980s and early 1990s. In 1994, Hayworth was elected to represent Arizona's 6th congressional district, which was redistricted into the 5th District starting in the 2002 House elections. He was defeated in 2006 by Democratic candidate Harry Mitchell.

In 2010, he unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. Senate,

losing to incumbent Senator John McCain in the Republican primary.[1][2]

Known for his outspoken nature—he called President Clinton an "unprincipled philandering president" who had "the most corrupt administration in U.S. history"

Hayworth had considered running for the Governor of Arizona in the 2006 elections against incumbent Democrat Janet Napolitano, but in March 2005 he announced that he preferred to stay in Congress. In the spring of 2005, Napolitano was enjoying a 79 percent favorable job rating.[12]

In the 2006 election, Hayworth faced former Tempe mayor, state senator, and then-state Democratic Party chairman Harry Mitchell. A number of prominent Republicans endorsed Mitchell,[13] and this defection appeared to have influenced the general election. CD-5, despite having a 60% Republican active registered voter advantage over Democrats (139,057 vs 86,743 in October 2006),[14] nevertheless saw Hayworth narrowly defeated by Mitchell.

While most media outlets called the race for Mitchell on election night, Hayworth refused to concede due to a large number of absentee and early-voting ballots.

However, when it became apparent that Mitchell's lead was too large to overcome, Hayworth conceded on November 14. He ultimately lost by 8,000 votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Hayworth

Post 11778418 View on 8kun

>>11778406

https://www.salon.com/2010/05/25/mccain_mocks_hayworth/

MAY 25, 2010

McCain: J.D. Hayworth is dumb

A new Web ad for the Arizona senator pounces on a gaffe by his GOP primary foe to portray him as ridiculous

ohn McCain's campaign can't seem to decide whether they think J.D. Hayworth's Republican primary bid is a real threat to the incumbent's political career, or a nuisance launched by a guy who even Arizona's GOP voters realize doesn't belong in the Senate.

A new Web ad McCain launched Tuesday lands pretty firmly on the latter side. Watch here:

McCain advisors say their polling finds many Arizona voters don't consider Hayworth an entirely serious candidate; obviously, a Web ad that tags him as dumb seems to play directly into that. When Hayworth served in the House, he often came off as a blowhard, portentously calling for over-the-top legislation on immigration and border control without actually getting any of it done. That helped Democrat Harry Mitchell beat him in 2006 in a marginal district (that, and Hayworth's ties to Jack Abramoff). The Arizona Republic called Hayworth a bully in endorsing Mitchell.

Which would all seem to argue for a strategy of ridiculing Hayworth in the primary. The tactic has worked, sort of, for McCain before; the Web ads advisor Fred Davis made in the summer of 2008 mocking Barack Obama helped narrow the presidential race in August and early September. And Obama is a much harder target for lampooning than Hayworth.

Instead of focusing on reminding voters how much they disliked Hayworth in the past, and how absurd he can be, though, McCain has simultaneously done that and run to the right to protect himself as if Hayworth was a perfectly credible candidate. In the process, he's exposed himself to some ridicule, for the way he's reversed himself on immigration and the military's ban on gay soldiers. The campaign has shifted into areas that could be more favorable to Hayworth like border security in part because McCain has jumped over to Hayworth's side of just about every debate.

The political climate this year is obviously pretty dire for incumbents, including in primaries; just ask Bob Bennett or Arlen Specter. But Hayworth isn't even getting the Tea Party support some Republican challengers have. Clearly, Hayworth isn't breaking through to voters the way other GOP insurgents did – McCain is still up by 20 points in the polls, despite his long Washington résumé in a year when that won't help you. Maybe soon he'll realize that.

MIKE MADDEN

Mike Madden is Salon's Washington correspondent.

Post 11778425 View on 8kun

>>11778418

>>11778406

https://www.jonchristianryter.com/Two_Cents/2cworth.100814.html

The John McCain Primer:

Rigging an Election 1, 2, 3

In politics there are donkeys, elephants and snakes. Sometimes, particularly when it comes to institutionalized politicians like Sen. John McCain, its hard to tell one from another. Why? Because McCain is all of them rolled into one. That makes him more dangerous than most political snakes whose ideological moorings are more easily identified. McCain is one of the "political purple people"—ideologically Republican (Red) and Democratic (Blue) at the same time. He is both a conservative and liberal at the same time. McCain is a chameleon whose political pedigree changes with the wind.

In 2008 McCain was picked by the barons of banking as the designated loser of the Presidential Election of 2008. McCain, like Sen. Barack Obama, was financially supported by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase—and George Soros. Dollars that went to McCain but not Obama came from Blank Rome, LLP and Greenburg Traurig LLP. Before the results of the New Hampshire primary came in, the nominees of both major political parties had already been picked. Not by the voters. By the money barons. As the Jan. 8, 2008 New Hampshire Democratic primary results began to trickle in the exit polls indicated Hillary was going to win. She was upbeat as the numbers began to pop up on the tote board. It was going to be a good night. At least until one of Hillary's campaign managers whispered in her ear. The color drained from her face. She sat down in a folding chair and, even with a straight face that revealed nothing, tears welled in her eyes. Hillary won the primary 39% to 36% but she lost 100% of her financial support from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase before the first ballot was counted. The money barons decided to pick another horse in the Democratic race. They had suddenly become convinced that enough Americans hated Hillary that she could not be elected. So, they jumped shipped and joined forces with George Soros, throwing their support behind Obama. From New Hampshire on, whenever Obama spoke about the aftermath of the election, he always prefaced his statements, "When I am President…" He knew he was going to win. So did McCain.

That's why McCain picked Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. He needed someone to blame his loss on so he would remain viable to run for, and win reelection to, his US Senate seat in 2010. Palin, however, boosted McCain's ratings. The liberal media spent most of the presidential campaign attacking Palin in order to diminish her in the eyes of the voters. The more they attacked the higher her popularity soared. When the campaign ended and the votes were counted, the McCain-Palin ticket won 59,934,814 votes. The votes bearing Obama's name totaled 69,456,897. But, there is a problem with them. Obama is a Marxist. There are 31,600,000 socialists or far left liberals in the United States who would have cast their votes for him. That's all. It appears that about 3 million independents voted for him as well. That means Obama should have won about 34.6 million votes. But there was a problem with the ballots in the ballot boxes around the country.

According to the Federal Election Commission website immediately after the election (now altered), there were 169 million registered voters in the United States. Fifty-six point eight percent of those registered voters voted. That's 96,992,000 actual voters who voted. (In the revised version of that website at the end of Nov., 2009, the 56.8% now represents the number of Democrats who voted, and not the actual number of voters who voted.) The problem is, on Nov. 4, 2008, there were 132,618,580 ballots in the ballot boxes. That was the result of ACORN's get-out-and-vote effort even though the left will claim the extra votes were the result of vote fraud by Republicans.

continued:

Post 11778435 View on 8kun

>>11778432

>>11778425

>>11778418

>>11778406

continued: https://www.jonchristianryter.com/Two_Cents/2cworth.100814.html

Even with Scott Brown and Sarah Palin—who left Arizona somewhat tarnished from the experience—McCain could not escape his problem. He was an establishment politician who is owned by the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business and not the voters who cast the ballots that place the candidates back in office. And, what's more, increasingly, more voters are getting to know it. Normally candidates who compete with the political superstars are nobody wanabees who couldn't win the nomination if they were the only people running. Institutionalized politicians like McCain seldom have to worry about fighting real candidates for re-nomination. In fact, most institutionalized politicians who work-across-the-aisle with the opposition Party's leaders are immune from Party-supported opposition candidates in the general election as well.

When McCain retired from the US Navy as a Captain in 1981, he went to work for his father-in-law, Jim Hensley, head of Hensley & Co., the largest Anheuser-Busch beer distributorships in the southwest. McCain decided to run for the 1st Congressional seat when 15-term Congressman John J. Rhodes retired in 1982. His opponent in that race was State Senator Jim Mack. It was a tough race that required a lot of Hensley money for McCain to eke out a narrow win.

Until today, the only other campaign spending binge McCain embarked on was his first Senate race when he had to engage in a financial slugfest with State legislator Richard Kimball to win the Senate seat held by retiring Barry Goldwater in 1986. In July, McCain spent $3.5 million to hammer Hayworth. The McCain Campaign reported that it took in $3.2 million in donations in July. In reality, $2.9 million was transferred to McCain's Senatorial campaign from his 2008 presidential campaign. Real donors only contributed $300 thousand. McCain, who started his reelection campaign with over $15 million in the bank from his senatorial election campaign fund and what was left of his 2008 campaign fund, has not been bashful about spending if he had the right negative ads to damage his opponent. Hayworth spent $1.09 million in July, collecting an additional $416 thousand as he attempted to launch a successful counteroffensive that painted McCain as an establishment candidate who votes for special interest groups and not the voters. But, with McCain outspending him 5-to-1, Hayworth was out of his league as McCain smothered his voice throughout the State.

Adding to Hayworth's problems were blogger like Jesse Matthewson, a Libertarian, who insists that both Hayworth and McCain are wrong for Arizona. Matthewson is one of several misguided bloggers who are supporting McCain's third party spoiler, Jim Deakin, since a vote for Deakin is actually a vote for McCain. And, yes, both McCain and Deakin understand that. That was, after all, why Deakin was in the race.

Let's look at what we know about Deakin. Let's skip to the chase and forget the reams of words about the improper use of lobbyists like Jack Abramoff by Tyco International to gain the assistance of Congressman and Senators by greasing the sweaty palms of politicians with campaign contributions to kill legislation that would add a tax surcharge to US manufacturers who send their jobs overseas and go right to a Tyco employee named Jim Deakin, now a political newcomer in Arizona politics. In 2008 when McCain was the designated loser in the Presidential election, a Tyco lawyer named Gardner Courson who, like Deakin, worked in the Tyco Fire Security Division. Courson was McCain's legal adviser. As JD Hayworth began closing the gap between himself and McCain, Deakin—with no political experience or reason to run—popped into the race and began describing this as a race between him and McCain, discounting Hayworth like he was not even in the campaign. Deakin, who talks like a smoothly brewed cup of tea with a Tea Party tag-on-a-string hanging out of the cup, gained the support of anti-incumbent Tea Party advocates even though he's not the real thing.

continued:

Post 11778439 View on 8kun

>>11778435

>>11778432

>>11778425

>>11778418

>>11778406

continued: https://www.jonchristianryter.com/Two_Cents/2cworth.100814.html

William Gheen, Hayworth's campaign manager, asked Deakin to drop out of the race in order to give Hayworth a chance to beat McCain. Deakin is polling 5% in the latest polls after McCain's spending $3.5 million on negative Hayworth campaign ads in July. A Deakin spokesman suggested that Hayworth drop out, claiming Deakin was the best candidate to beat McCain. Gheen issued a statement saying that "…Deakin claims he is the best candidate to defeat McCain, but nobody can find any example in the history of the United States when a candidate polling as low as Deakin five weeks before the election has ever won a race in America. Deakin's statement," Gheen concluded, "is either delusional or he is [wittingly or unwittingly] a spoiler for John McCain."

Blogger Susan Bradford wrote in Sonoran Alliance that "…the Senator and Deakin talk out of both sides of their mouths and are waging a faux battle against each other in order to nix the chances of JD Hayworth…who has the resounding support of the Tea Party Movement. As the New Yorker Magazine has already revealed, McCain anticipated Hayworth's candidacy [in] late 2009 and was afraid the former Congressman might beat him…Then along came Deakin."

Deakin, by the way, is a shareholder in Detek, Inc. and Liberty Fire Protection Company. Liberty is a contractor for Simplex Grinnell, LLP, a subsidiary of Tyco Fire & Security, LLP which, in turn, is a division of Tyco International. Tyco owes McCain for his support on two measures. One that exempted Tyco from a tax surcharge levied against companies that took their manufacturing overseas and, second, legislation that limits the liability of oil companies. McCain voted to include Tyco. Oh, by the way, Deakin has also benefited from McCain legislative largess. Liberty Fire Protection was the beneficiary of $28,856.00 in government contracts from the Navy and from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Detek fared even better. They received contracts totaling $637,241.00 from the Department of the Army, Navy, State, the Secret Service and the Defense Logistic Agency. It's sad that the voters don't take the time to check out the candidates they take at face value. If they did, they would not vote for either McCain or Deakin. Both of them appear to be campaigning as reformers who are determined to end "business as usual" in the nation's capital when both of them are "gimme" candidates who are solidly in bed with the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business. You can bet if and when McCain is reelected, www.FedSpending.org will show that Deakin is the recipient of new McCain largess for his role in helping the Senator save his job. Once again, for whatever it's worth, you have my two cents worth.