The Problem with Jim Deakin

Until recently, I took it at face value that Jim Deakin was all that some of my friends said he was: the most Constitutional, the most Principled. Because I have such a high regard for the principles of these friends, I did not doubt them. But, with the survival of what’s left of our Constitution hanging in the balance, I thought it important to scrutinize Jim Deakin. The harsh reality is that a vote for Jim Deakin is a vote for John McCain.

Why would someone believe that Jim Deakin is “constitutional and principled”? Because he cites the Constitution at every turn? He’s never held political office, and has no legislative record. You might say, “Well, you can’t hold that against him, the fact that he has no political experience.” Ok, what can you say that recommends him for the office of U.S. Senator? Jim Deakin has no formal education. Like many other American citizens, he has taken a recent interest in politics riding on the wave of the Tea Party/Constitutionalist movement.

While Mr. Deakin hasn’t had any lawmaking experience whatsoever, he does have political campaign experience, which he began on 1/7/2009. That record can be examined. After more than a year and a half of campaigning, his message and leadership abilities have garnered no meaningful endorsements. Contrast this with another grassroots, politically inexperienced candidate: Jeff Smith, who began his campaign on 3/8/2010. Already, he has received a strong endorsement from Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Mr Deakin has not had to consider volumes of legislation, carefully analyzing each item, considering the implications and unintended consequences, and then, under the pressure of time over which he has no control, casted and defended his vote forevermore. It is not enough to say, “I’m against the Patriot Act. I’m against the Fed.” What are his solutions to the intractable problems facing Arizona and our country? What kind of leadership has he exhibited in his past that convince us he is capable of gaining the support and respect of his fellow Senators? Or will he stand with his arms crossed, defiantly stating, “Not Constitutional. I’m against it!” His positions have not been challenged by those who have given these issues serious consideration, not even by Hayworth or McCain during the 7/17/2010 debate.

I studied two Deakin websites: and, Mr. Deakin is a self-proclaimed “hero to those with whom he served” while he was in the Navy, stating on his website, “On another occasion, an explosion of a boiler mechanism sent Jim into harm’s way as he rescued two of his shipmates.” I emailed Mr. Deakin asking him about these statements. Did he receive a medal or a citation? He replied, “The sailors on Watch and the Damage control team did the majority of the work. I do not remember if anyone received any medals for the incident.”

I would have had more respect for Jim Deakin if he had been honest from the beginning and not given the impression that he alone rescued his shipmates.

Deakin is also the self-proclaimed Tea Party candidate. Yet no Tea Party group, other than some members, have endorsed him. I know of no Constitutionalist organization that has endorsed him.

The Deakin versus McCain website proclaims, “A vote for Hayworth is a Vote for McCain.” In the recent debate on July 17, 2010, Deakin states, “They are the same!”

Even on its face, this is an absurd statement to anyone who has studied John McCain’s Liberal Republican record. McCain sponsored bills that imperiled our freedom of speech (McCain-Feingold), that would have devastated our economy (McCain-Leiberman and McCain-Kennedy), that would have granted due process rights to enemy combatants (McCain-ACLU). He voted against a federal amendment that would have protected and preserved the marriage between one man and one woman. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. He voted FOR the big bank bailouts. He voted to confirm Eric Holder. It was because of McCain that we American citizens fought long and hard, tooth and nail, protesting McCain-Kennedy, the most far reaching amnesty program in American history. According to the Heritage Foundation, it would have cost the taxpayers more than $2.6 trillion. His “turncoat Conservative” record is easily found.

There is no doubt that John McCain truly is part of the “ruling class” of Washington. Once he married into the fortunes of his wife’s liquor business, he never had to worry about earning a living except as a politician. It is ironic that John McCain sponsored legislation to regulate vitamins, while millions of lives, marriages, and families have been ruined, and health insurance premiums skyrocketing, in part, because of alcohol abuse.

McCain, who is waging war on JD Hayworth, refused to attack Barack Obama, going as far as to state, “We have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House.” (10/10/2008 while campaigning in Minnesota). Barack Obama’s far Left voting record in the U.S. Senate, and his long-standing relationships with former terrorists, the corrupt political machine of Chicago, and a racist minister were well documented in the book “The Case Against Barack Obama” by David Freddoso. Those of us who studied Obama are not surprised by his actions as president, as he systematically dismantles America remaking it into a Socialist’s dream. An enemy of America couldn’t do a better job.

Yet Deakin asserts that Hayworth is no different than McCain? The truth is, JD Hayworth is much different than John McCain.

For Jim Deakin, JD Hayworth was problematic. Yes, JD had voted for pork, but that wasn’t enough to truly vilify him. Deakin had to “scour the Library of Congress” and selectively sift through votes to prove his case against JD Hayworth. Deakin was not interested in anything that proved that Hayworth was distinctly different and more Conservative, more principled than McCain. Deakin’s goal was clear: Present himself as the clearest Conservative Constitutionalist, because that is what will resonate with the TEA Partiers and the Constitutionalists.

Frequently, there is “more to the story” on many of those votes. I will highlight a few of them.

Deakin’s first exhibit under the heading, “A Vote for Hayworth is a Vote for Amnesty” is the C rating given to Hayworth and McCain from Numbers USA. Actually, McCain got a “D.” NumbersUSA is against illegal immigration, but this group is also in favor of reducing legal immigration. So, any votes that increase the number of legal immigrants rates poorly. It should be noted that, over time, JD Hayworth’s ratings improved, while McCain’s remained erratic.

ALIPAC (Americans for Legal Immigrants) has asked Jim Deakin to pull out of the race, knowing that he will pull votes from Hayworth and guarantee a McCain victory. This group is 100% dedicated to eliminating illegal immigration. If a vote for JD Hayworth is a vote for amnesty, why would this group support Hayworth? Some might criticize this group because it is a PAC. But does that negate their purpose?

Deakin bashed JD Hayworth for voting against HR 4437. JD Hayworth stated at the time of his vote that he voted against the bill because it muddied the waters by including a guest worker program, which Hayworth passionately spoke out against. I suppose that if JD had voted for the bill, Deakin would have yelled, “JD supports guest worker program”!

Deakin bashed JD Hayworth for voting against the Obey Amendment. Ron Paul voted against it, too. Why? If Deakin had voted for it, he would have provided $100 million to fund grants under the REAL ID Act.

Deakin asserts: “There are reasons John Hayworth was beaten by Harry Mitchell.” True, but not for the reasons that Deakin insinuates.

The boundaries of JD’s district were changed to include Tempe, home of Arizona State University, its Liberal professors, their wives and families, the teachers unions and Liberal students. This redistricting meant that Tempe was now the largest city in that district. Harry Mitchell, a former teacher, had been a councilman and then mayor of Tempe for about 20 years.

Also, unlike Democrats whose scandals seem to elevate their popularity, Republicans across the country saw their leads in the polls evaporate right after the Mark Foley “page story.” The Liberal Arizona Republic despised JD Hayworth, calling him a “bully” and mercilessly crucified him in story after story about his perceived connections with Jack Abramoff, who had never even been to JD’s office, and who donated no more than $2,200 to his campaign. More on this later.

Deakin ignores the fact that JD introduced H.R. 3938 Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005. JD did this shortly after John McCain introduced S.1033 the infamous McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.

No one in Congress did more to derail McCain-Kennedy than JD Hayworth, and he and his family paid a heavy financial and political price for his opposition. When Hayworth came out publicly against McCain’s amnesty plan, McCain’s office threatened to badmouth Hayworth in the media over Jack Abramoff. Hayworth could have crumbled, but he didn’t. This cost JD Hayworth many thousands of dollars in legal bills as the Justice Department’s Liberal lawyers conducted their two year “investigation,” before dropping it. JD did not have a wife with a liquor business fortune to help him pay off this personal debt. And the Liberal Republicans in Washington offered no help, since they support John McCain. JD Hayworth was helped by his grassroots supporters.

So, what was in H.R. 3938.that Deakin omitted from his dossier on Hayworth? JD Hayworth introduced H.R. 3938 Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005 on 9/25/2005, joined by 23 original cosponsors. It contained many anti-illegal immigrant provisions but chief among them were: 1) Civil and criminal penalties for aliens unlawfully present in the U.S., 2) An end to birthright citizenship that automatically grants citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, 3) An end to family sponsored immigration (aka “chain migration,”), 4) Elimination of the visa lottery program, 5) Increased border security, including the use of the military.

In 1/2005 (before the birth of the TEA parties) JD introduced H. Res. 20 which “expressed disapproval of the House of Representatives of the Social Security and the Director General of the Mexican Social Security Institute on June 29, 2004.” (This resolution disapproved of social security benefits being granted to illegal immigrants.)

On 10/7/2005, JD joined 80 other House Members to let the Bush Administration know of their opposition to guest worker programs until current immigration laws are better enforced.

JD Hayworth helped author the Bush tax cuts.

On January 25, 2006, JD Hayworth published a book titled “Whatever it Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security and the War on Terror.” This book, calling for enforcement first, was written well before SB1070, and before Deakin asserted that JD Hayworth supported “amnesty.”

Further, JD has a 100% Pro-Life Voting record, has maintained an “A” rating from the NRA, a lifetime rating of 89 from Citizens Against Government Waste, and a lifetime rating of 98 from the American Conservative Union.

What is most agonizing to me and causes me to weep for my country and our Constitution is that John McCain’s money and power in producing rapid fire attacks on JD Hayworth appear to be working. He is relentlessly pounding away at JD Hayworth’s missteps, diverting attention away from his own record. He has even tapped into funds from his presidential campaign. Those funds were from donors who were fighting Obama, not Hayworth. McCain’s strategy to debate JD only if Deakin would be included is working to pull votes away from JD Hayworth.

I’m voting FOR JD Hayworth, an imperfect politician, who I believe will do everything possible for Arizona and our country. I believe he will listen to his constituents.
Jim Deakin stated in his “Candidate Profile” found on the LD20 GOP website, “I am not cut from the same cloth as the other two candidates in the U.S. Senate race for Arizona. I have integrity, commitment to principle, honor, and the limitations of the U.S. Constitution.”

Heroes don’t proclaim their heroism. People of integrity, honor, and commitment to principle don’t proclaim their character with words.

Jim Deakin has the right to run for Senator. But I would ask him, “If you truly care about the United States Constitution, please pull out of the race and help JD Hayworth. He wants to do what’s right. With your support, we will “come together” as you stated in the debate, to return our country to the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.