U.S. House Win in Arizona for the (R)

 

So Republican Debbie Lesko has won a special election for Arizona’s 8th congressional district over Dem. Hiral Tipirneni.

Lesko, a former state lawmaker, will head to Washington to replace Franks, who resigned his seat in December midway through his eighth term over sexual-misconduct allegations. She will complete his term, which expires in January, and run for a full two-year term of her own in the fall elections.

Meanwhile, Democrats will point to an unbroken string of nine special federal elections now in which they have improved over their 2016 showing. That performance has the party looking ahead to the November elections with an eye toward regaining control of one or both chambers of Congress.

To do that, they still need to win a net 23 seats in the House after falling short in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.

Moments after winning, Lesko gave an emotional talk to supporters at the home of a neighbor who hosted her victory party.

“It’s very surreal,” she said. “Twenty-five years ago, I left an abusive husband. And I sure as heck, never would have dreamt in a million years that I would be running for Congress, be a congresswoman.”

I thought that the Elephants would never win again and we were facing a never-ending onslaught of Blue Wave. The Mainstream Media is talking about the narrow margin of victory for Lesko and why it portends disaster for the party of Donald Trump in the fall. But just maybe, maybe, that won’t be the case.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 167 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Sounds like January 30, 1933.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    That thousand year future died 12 years, three months later.

    I don’t even pretend to understand a word of the above. (I don’t read science fiction.)

    But I wish you well in your predictions. You’ll hear naught from me; for I understand that history … is history. Much of interest; much to be learned. But the future is oh, so much more interesting. And unknown to me.

    Anyway, the phrase “those who forget the past are bound to repeat it” is best translated as:

    “human nature is ever thus”

    Personally speaking, I think we’ve got a President who understands human nature. Frankly, I think we’re in good hands.

    You might want to google those dates.

    • #91
  2. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Sounds like January 30, 1933.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    That thousand year future died 12 years, three months later.

    I don’t even pretend to understand a word of the above. (I don’t read science fiction.)

    But I wish you well in your predictions. You’ll hear naught from me; for I understand that history … is history. Much of interest; much to be learned. But the future is oh, so much more interesting. And unknown to me.

    Anyway, the phrase “those who forget the past are bound to repeat it” is best translated as:

    “human nature is ever thus”

    Personally speaking, I think we’ve got a President who understands human nature. Frankly, I think we’re in good hands.

    You might want to google those dates.

    Oh, honey. I assume you missed my comment “we are in unchartered territory”.

    Do you think for one minute you could make a reference that was relevant? Or are you too wimpy to reference Hitler without, you know … using the name Hitler.

    There have been many leaders in this word: Hitler, Lincoln, Washington, Stalin, Adams, Churchill, Schlindler.

    You choose the history that will repeat itself. I’ll look forward to the future.

    • #92
  3. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Now that I’m thinking about it: The Magna Carta is part of history. So is the Emancipation Proclamation. As is the Declaration of Independence.

    Dear Calvin Coolidge reduced the size of government.

    Margaret Thatcher rocked the house, as did Pope John Paul II. Thanks to them and St Reagan the wall was torn down.

    History will repeat itself!

    Yippee!

    • #93
  4. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Sounds like January 30, 1933.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    That thousand year future died 12 years, three months later.

    <whistle blows loudly>

    Gary loses.

    • #94
  5. danok1 Member
    danok1
    @danok1

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Sounds like January 30, 1933.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    That thousand year future died 12 years, three months later.

    I don’t even pretend to understand a word of the above. (I don’t read science fiction.)

    But I wish you well in your predictions. You’ll hear naught from me; for I understand that history … is history. Much of interest; much to be learned. But the future is oh, so much more interesting. And unknown to me.

    Anyway, the phrase “those who forget the past are bound to repeat it” is best translated as:

    “human nature is ever thus”

    Personally speaking, I think we’ve got a President who understands human nature. Frankly, I think we’re in good hands.

    You might want to google those dates.

    Yes, because nothing says “Hitler” like returning issues that should be decided by the legislature to the legislature (e.g., DACA, subsidies to insurance companies never appropriated under Obamacare), slashing regulations, etc. Exactly what Hitler did!

    Pro tip: You’re getting enough push back on your original comment. Don’t add foolishness like this to your argument.

    • #95
  6. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    There is evidence that Trumps increasing popularity amongst Republicans is actually reflective of the party getting smaller.

    And your evidence is? Kindly point it out on the web, or, even better, give us a link.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/01/08/evidence-trump-is-shrinking-the-gop/

    Jen Rubin’s column! Everything is recursive!

     

    Do you have anything to say about the data?

    Where were the 124,000 less voters than in 2016? And will they come out to vote in 2018?

    I think the general election in November, 2018 will more resemble November, 2016 than this puny special election turnout.

    • #96
  7. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Sounds like January 30, 1933.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    That thousand year future died 12 years, three months later.

    I don’t even pretend to understand a word of the above. (I don’t read science fiction.)

    But I wish you well in your predictions. You’ll hear naught from me; for I understand that history … is history. Much of interest; much to be learned. But the future is oh, so much more interesting. And unknown to me.

    Anyway, the phrase “those who forget the past are bound to repeat it” is best translated as:

    “human nature is ever thus”

    Personally speaking, I think we’ve got a President who understands human nature. Frankly, I think we’re in good hands.

    You might want to google those dates.

    You might want to read what Holocaust survivor Anita Dittman (and VDH) have to say about your comparison …

    • #97
  8. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Annefy (View Comment):
    Personally speaking, I think we’ve got a President who understands human nature. Frankly, I think we’re in good hands.

    Well, the former doesn’t necessarily indicate the latter. 

    A conman also understands human nature. That doesn’t mean he’d make a good president. 

    • #98
  9. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility. 

    • #99
  10. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility.

    One thing she isn’t saying…everything that happens is bad, and it’s ALL Trump’s fault…by analysis.

    • #100
  11. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    cdor (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility.

    One thing she isn’t saying…everything that happens is bad, and it’s ALL Trump’s fault…by analysis.

    Okay, then again neither am I. 

    • #101
  12. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility.

    I would seriously like to discuss this unchartered territory. We arrive from different perspectives, but acknowledge the difficult and challenging 2018 electoral environment.

    Clearly, President Trump enrages and motivates the democrat base to come out in full force to vote against his Party (even though many in the GOP disclaim him). It is almost comical to call the GOP ‘his’ Party. The dems will be much more motivated than the GOP this November because of the President. But how much so? The GOP can influence that, for the better, if it wants to.

    The GOP needs to find and get behind the most electable candidates running. Staying with Arizona as an example, it is beyond silly to have McSally, Ward and Arpaio all running for Flake’s Senate seat. This not only dilutes the effort, it leaves a bad taste for the losers to be motivated to vote in the general, which is already an issue as noted above. In Alabama, we had Luther Strange, Mo Brooks, and the infamous Roy Moore. I suggest that there are parallels to the line up of three in Arizona.

    Much like the story of Goldilocks, there were three options (Hot, Cold and “Just Right”). Hot = Moore, Arpaio; Cold = Strange, McSally; and “Just Right” = Brooks and Ward. Mo Brooks would have been a shoe-in for the Alabama Senate special election. But McConnell butted in for Big Luther and what everyone got was Hot and Stupid. This should not be repeated by logical people.

    Mitch McConnell and Incoming Speaker of the House … let’s “bury the hatchets”, and let the states alone to select their respective candidates where there is really a contested GOP primary. Do not provide any ammunition for the circular firing squad. Mitch, if you had stayed out of Alabama, Mo Brooks would be a fellow Senator rather than Doug Jones. You know this. It’s time to stop fighting good future GOP Senators in order to keep bringing back your fossils like Strange and Thad (is he still alive?).

    My question to Mitch is … ‘Do You Want To Win?’

    • #102
  13. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    The GOP doesn’t want to win, because that would mean they’d have to act on their promises. They’re happier as the opposition than as leaders. Being the opposition is easy. Taking the lead? That’s work, man! 

    • #103
  14. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    The GOP doesn’t want to win, because that would mean they’d have to act on their promises. They’re happier as the opposition than as leaders. Being the opposition is easy. Taking the lead? That’s work, man!

    It is hard (for me) to argue against this premise. They aren’t called the Stupid Party* for nothing.

    ‘* Let it be noted that this moniker was coined, and applicable, BT (Before Trump)

    • #104
  15. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility.

    I would seriously like to discuss this unchartered territory. We arrive from different perspectives, but acknowledge the difficult and challenging 2018 electoral environment.

    Clearly, President Trump enrages and motivates the democrat base to come out in full force to vote against his Party (even though many in the GOP disclaim him). It is almost comical to call the GOP ‘his’ Party. The dems will be much more motivated than the GOP this November because of the President. But how much so? The GOP can influence that, for the better, if it wants to.

    The GOP needs to find and get behind the most electable candidates running. Staying with Arizona as an example, it is beyond silly to have McSally, Ward and Arpaio all running for Flake’s Senate seat. This not only dilutes the effort, it leaves a bad taste for the losers to be motivated to vote in the general, which is already an issue as noted above. In Alabama, we had Luther Strange, Mo Brooks, and the infamous Roy Moore. I suggest that there are parallels to the line up of three in Arizona.

    Much like the story of Goldilocks, there were three options (Hot, Cold and “Just Right”). Hot = Moore, Arpaio; Cold = Strange, McSally; and “Just Right” = Brooks and Ward. Mo Brooks would have been a shoe-in for the Alabama Senate special election. But McConnell butted in for Big Luther and what everyone got was Hot and Stupid. This should not be repeated by logical people.

    Mitch McConnell and Incoming Speaker of the House … let’s “bury the hatchets”, and let the states alone to select their respective candidates where there is really a contested GOP primary. Do not provide any ammunition for the circular firing squad. Mitch, if you had stayed out of Alabama, Mo Brooks would be a fellow Senator rather than Doug Jones. You know this. It’s time to stop fighting good future GOP Senators in order to keep bringing back your fossils like Strange and Thad (is he still alive?).

    My question to Mitch is … ‘Do You Want To Win?’

    I won’t vote for Ward and I am an Arizona Republican.  (I am damn near “NeverWard.”)

    if Ward wins, I will volunteer my services to “Republicans for Sinema.”

    A vote for Ward is a vote for Sinema.  This is a binary choice.  Do you prefer Sinema or McSally?

    • #105
  16. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility.

    I would seriously like to discuss this unchartered territory. We arrive from different perspectives, but acknowledge the difficult and challenging 2018 electoral environment.

    Clearly, President Trump enrages and motivates the democrat base to come out in full force to vote against his Party (even though many in the GOP disclaim him). It is almost comical to call the GOP ‘his’ Party. The dems will be much more motivated than the GOP this November because of the President. But how much so? The GOP can influence that, for the better, if it wants to.

    The GOP needs to find and get behind the most electable candidates running. Staying with Arizona as an example, it is beyond silly to have McSally, Ward and Arpaio all running for Flake’s Senate seat. This not only dilutes the effort, it leaves a bad taste for the losers to be motivated to vote in the general, which is already an issue as noted above. In Alabama, we had Luther Strange, Mo Brooks, and the infamous Roy Moore. I suggest that there are parallels to the line up of three in Arizona.

    Much like the story of Goldilocks, there were three options (Hot, Cold and “Just Right”). Hot = Moore, Arpaio; Cold = Strange, McSally; and “Just Right” = Brooks and Ward. Mo Brooks would have been a shoe-in for the Alabama Senate special election. But McConnell butted in for Big Luther and what everyone got was Hot and Stupid. This should not be repeated by logical people.

    Mitch McConnell and Incoming Speaker of the House … let’s “bury the hatchets”, and let the states alone to select their respective candidates where there is really a contested GOP primary. Do not provide any ammunition for the circular firing squad. Mitch, if you had stayed out of Alabama, Mo Brooks would be a fellow Senator rather than Doug Jones. You know this. It’s time to stop fighting good future GOP Senators in order to keep bringing back your fossils like Strange and Thad (is he still alive?).

    My question to Mitch is … ‘Do You Want To Win?’

    I won’t vote for Ward and I am an Arizona Republican. (I am damn near “NeverWard.”)

    A vote for Ward is a vote for Sinema. This is a binary choice. Do you prefer Sinema or McSally?

    Gary, you are the poster boy for the SP.

    • #106
  17. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility.

    I would seriously like to discuss this unchartered territory. We arrive from different perspectives, but acknowledge the difficult and challenging 2018 electoral environment.

    Clearly, President Trump enrages and motivates the democrat base to come out in full force to vote against his Party (even though many in the GOP disclaim him). It is almost comical to call the GOP ‘his’ Party. The dems will be much more motivated than the GOP this November because of the President. But how much so? The GOP can influence that, for the better, if it wants to.

    The GOP needs to find and get behind the most electable candidates running. Staying with Arizona as an example, it is beyond silly to have McSally, Ward and Arpaio all running for Flake’s Senate seat. This not only dilutes the effort, it leaves a bad taste for the losers to be motivated to vote in the general, which is already an issue as noted above. In Alabama, we had Luther Strange, Mo Brooks, and the infamous Roy Moore. I suggest that there are parallels to the line up of three in Arizona.

    Much like the story of Goldilocks, there were three options (Hot, Cold and “Just Right”). Hot = Moore, Arpaio; Cold = Strange, McSally; and “Just Right” = Brooks and Ward. Mo Brooks would have been a shoe-in for the Alabama Senate special election. But McConnell butted in for Big Luther and what everyone got was Hot and Stupid. This should not be repeated by logical people.

    Mitch McConnell and Incoming Speaker of the House … let’s “bury the hatchets”, and let the states alone to select their respective candidates where there is really a contested GOP primary. Do not provide any ammunition for the circular firing squad. Mitch, if you had stayed out of Alabama, Mo Brooks would be a fellow Senator rather than Doug Jones. You know this. It’s time to stop fighting good future GOP Senators in order to keep bringing back your fossils like Strange and Thad (is he still alive?).

    My question to Mitch is … ‘Do You Want To Win?’

    I won’t vote for Ward and I am an Arizona Republican. (I am damn near “NeverWard.”)

    A vote for Ward is a vote for Sinema. This is a binary choice. Do you prefer Sinema or McSally?

    Gary, you are the poster boy for the SP.

    SP?

    • #107
  18. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    The GOP doesn’t want to win, because that would mean they’d have to act on their promises. They’re happier as the opposition than as leaders. Being the opposition is easy. Taking the lead? That’s work, man!

    I’m sorry, but every now and then I just have to ask – can you name me one promise, just one, on which the GOP didn’t act?  And just for the record, putting something up for a vote and losing is not the same as not acting.

    I can think of 3 to 5 GOP Senators who don’t seem to care if the GOP wins elections, as long as they can preen.  McCain, Flake, Paul, and maybe Collins and Murkowski.  Are you painting the whole GOP with that handful of people, or are you talking about something else entirely?

    • #108
  19. Drew, now with Dragon Energy! Member
    Drew, now with Dragon Energy!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Larry3435 (View Comment):
    I can think of 3 to 5 GOP Senators who don’t seem to care if the GOP wins elections, as long as they can preen. McCain, Flake, Paul, and maybe Collins and Murkowski. Are you painting the whole GOP with that handful of people, or are you talking about something else entirely?

    Well obviously I’m making a generalization. And yes, those preeners come to mind. Particularly when they vote for a bill when they think it’ll never pass anyway, and then vote against it for fear it might actually pass.

    I’ve had enough of these types.

    • #109
  20. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    The GOP doesn’t want to win, because that would mean they’d have to act on their promises. They’re happier as the opposition than as leaders. Being the opposition is easy. Taking the lead? That’s work, man!

    Yes.  That’s why there are so many congressional retirements this year.  They’re worried they’re going to win in November.

    • #110
  21. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Joe Arpaio isn’t going to Washington:

    At least 11 individuals filed lawsuits or legal claims as a result of being targeted by Arpaio and Thomas. The county settled all 11 cases:

    • Gary Donahoe, retired Superior Court judge: $1,275,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $767,127.
    • Kenneth Fields, retired Superior Court judge: $100,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $81,040.
    • Barbara Mundell, retired Superior Court judge: $500,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $134,273.
    • Anna Baca, retired Superior Court judge: $100,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $112,588.
    • Stephen Wetzel, former county technology director: $75,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $107,647.
    • Sandi Wilson, deputy county manager and county budget director: $122,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $458,318.
    • Don Stapley, former county supervisor: $3.5 million settlement. County legal expenses: $1,682,020.
    • Mary Rose Wilcox, county supervisor: $975,000 settlement, plus $9,938 in court-ordered legal costs. County legal expenses to date: over $375,442.
    • Susan Schuerman, Stapley’s executive assistant: $500,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $200,201.
    • Conley Wolfswinkel, Stapley’s business associate: $1,400,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $1,586,152.
    • Andy Kunasek, county supervisor: $123,110 settlement. County legal expenses: $1,150.

    In February 2010, Pima County Superior Court Judge John S. Leonardo found that Arpaio “misused the power of his office to target members of the Board of Supervisors for criminal investigation”.

    As of June 2014, costs to Maricopa County taxpayers related to Arpaio’s and Thomas’s failed corruption investigations exceeded $44 million, not including staff time.

    This is just a small part of his corrupt reign as Maricopa County Sheriff. He has no support from LEO’s in Arizona.

    • #111
  22. Drew, now with Dragon Energy! Member
    Drew, now with Dragon Energy!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Drew, now with Dragon Energy! (View Comment):

    The GOP doesn’t want to win, because that would mean they’d have to act on their promises. They’re happier as the opposition than as leaders. Being the opposition is easy. Taking the lead? That’s work, man!

    Yes. That’s why there are so many congressional retirements this year. They’re worried they’re going to win in November.

    Yes. Precisely. Retire from Congress, get hired by a lobbying firm or a media outlet. It’s the whole revolving door issue that people have been criticizing for decades. CNN will hire them as their token “reasonable Republicans” and pretend they have viewpoint diversity. 

    • #112
  23. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    Joe Arpaio isn’t going to Washington:

    At least 11 individuals filed lawsuits or legal claims as a result of being targeted by Arpaio and Thomas. The county settled all 11 cases:

    • Gary Donahoe, retired Superior Court judge: $1,275,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $767,127.
    • Kenneth Fields, retired Superior Court judge: $100,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $81,040.
    • Barbara Mundell, retired Superior Court judge: $500,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $134,273.
    • Anna Baca, retired Superior Court judge: $100,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $112,588.
    • Stephen Wetzel, former county technology director: $75,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $107,647.
    • Sandi Wilson, deputy county manager and county budget director: $122,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $458,318.
    • Don Stapley, former county supervisor: $3.5 million settlement. County legal expenses: $1,682,020.
    • Mary Rose Wilcox, county supervisor: $975,000 settlement, plus $9,938 in court-ordered legal costs. County legal expenses to date: over $375,442.
    • Susan Schuerman, Stapley’s executive assistant: $500,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $200,201.
    • Conley Wolfswinkel, Stapley’s business associate: $1,400,000 settlement. County legal expenses: $1,586,152.
    • Andy Kunasek, county supervisor: $123,110 settlement. County legal expenses: $1,150.

    In February 2010, Pima County Superior Court Judge John S. Leonardo found that Arpaio “misused the power of his office to target members of the Board of Supervisors for criminal investigation”.[104]

    As of June 2014, costs to Maricopa County taxpayers related to Arpaio’s and Thomas’s failed corruption investigations exceeded $44 million, not including staff time.

    This is just a small part of his corrupt reign as Maricopa County Sheriff. He has no support from LEO’s in Arizona.

    Thank you listing these cases.  It is a pity that Arpaio didn’t have to pay this money personally.

    • #113
  24. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I wish to associate myself with the prescient statements of Josh Farnsworth, Fred Cole, Valiuth and James Lockett.

    The scant margin of victory should send off alarm bells all over America. Debbie Lesko was a good candidate, and her opponent was too liberal for that district.SNIP

    Those statements, as well as your own, are, with all respect, sufficiently prescient to be the conventional wisdom. As I noted above with regard to Cruz, there is absolutely no certainty that any Republican other than DJT would have won the White House in ’16. SNIP Making unfounded suppositions about another Republican in the WH is just shooting fish SNIP

    Since 22nd Amendment was adopted, the American Party have alternated between the two parties every 8 years, with the sole exception of Reagan beating Carter and H.W. winning Reagan’s third term. Any Republican would have won in 2016. Cruz was the last candidate standing, so I used him as an example; Kasich also would have beaten Clinton.

    The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951. Between there and 2016 there are eight 8 year periods (1952 election to 2016 election). You throw out two of those as special. Are we to take seriously a law-like claim based on six data points? That there are special reasons for 1/4 of the cases (2/8) to not follow the rule should suggest that the rule is weak, if a rule at all (absent some serious elaboration with testable significant variables). SNIP

    1952-1960 R-Eisenhower

    1960-1968 D-Kennedy/Johnson (lot to unpack there but let’s overlook)

    1968-1976 R-Nixon/Ford (perfectly normal, nothing to see)

    1976-1984 D-Carter/R-Reagan (special case, omit from analysis)

    1984-1992 R-Reagan/GHW Bush (special case, omit from analysis)

    1992-2000 D-Clinton

    2000-2008 R-GW Bush

    2008-2016 D-Obama

     

    Plus if that rule were all that notable, wouldn’t it have affected some of the many media people, all of whom seemed to predict that Hillary would win? Even the National Review went out for Hillary. Couple of folks on Fox were the only ones who “knew” Trump would pull it off.

    Hannity has mentioned the heaps of scorn he received after Trump’s election, on account of the fact that Sean had Donald on his show much  more than Hillary. So he took part of a segment to explain that during the 2016 election cycle, he couldn’t take a bathroom break during a commercial without tripping over Trump, who lay in wait hoping to get on another time. Meanwhile Hillary ignored his invitations to come on.

    Above shows the entitlement of the “libs” who think that a Talking Head on a “R”-slanted station is wrong for having on a “R” candidate. Double standard employed. I mean, has anyone here seen Rachel M with lots of band width devoted to “R” candidates?

     

    • #114
  25. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility.

    I won’t vote for Ward and I am an Arizona Republican. (I am damn near “NeverWard.”)

    if Ward wins, I will volunteer my services to “Republicans for Sinema.”

    A vote for Ward is a vote for Sinema. This is a binary choice. Do you prefer Sinema or McSally?

    A recent poll that I’ve seen shows Dr. Kelli Ward with a 9-point lead in the GOP Senate primary.

    Why are you giving her the Donald Trump treatment pray tell? This is exactly the problem with the GOP.

    You are saying the exact same thing that you did about Donald Trump throughout 2016. You were wrong.

    • #115
  26. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    Yes Trump has shown that things are changing. Pew Survey and Gallup surveys showed by Spring 2016, 42% of all Americans were disgusted by b-o-t-h parties. Sure, people in general feel strongly about the various ideals represented by the two brands that serve those ideals up. But somehow, for the last thirty years, no matter which party was in control, jobs went overseas, the liberal belief system on so many things became the de rigeur standard for college degrees being issued, and the people at the top wanted the same results via legislation: exploitation and destruction of the middle class, ability to take away many of the US Constitution and  Amendment-chartered human rights, loss of tort law for any save those in the highest Corporate positions and on and on.

    Trump showed that the middle class  can have a candidate not only speak for them but also win the office that they campaign for. It was like someone finally kicked in a window in the out house where we have been locked inside. (It remains to be seen if what the middle and lower classes need will ever be enacted, but I for one enjoy the fear of God this has sparked within the Elite.)

    • #116
  27. E. Kent Golding Moderator
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):
    Personally speaking, I think we’ve got a President who understands human nature. Frankly, I think we’re in good hands.

    Well, the former doesn’t necessarily indicate the latter.

    A conman also understands human nature. That doesn’t mean he’d make a good president.

    I do believe we are in the process of testing that hypothesis.     The Conman seems to be doing OK so far,  and certainly better than the alternatives.

    • #117
  28. Could Be Anyone Inactive
    Could Be Anyone
    @CouldBeAnyone

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):
    Personally speaking, I think we’ve got a President who understands human nature. Frankly, I think we’re in good hands.

    Well, the former doesn’t necessarily indicate the latter.

    A conman also understands human nature. That doesn’t mean he’d make a good president.

    I do believe we are in the process of testing that hypothesis. The Conman seems to be doing OK so far, and certainly better than the alternatives.

    Does anyone doubt that all the members in congress understand human nature? All of them have won the election to get into office and a large majority will stay in office by winning future elections. So given this fact and the logic applied by Annefy why should anyone distrust congress?

    Are we not in good hands with them?

    • #118
  29. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    So this is a win … but it should have been a bigger win! (or something)

    We are in unchartered territory; anyone who thinks they can predict the future by looking to the past is a fool.

    For good or for ill, Trump has changed everything.

    Stop reading your history books and try to understand the potential that the future holds.

    So by this analysis anything that happens good or ill is Trumps responsibility.

    I won’t vote for Ward and I am an Arizona Republican. (I am damn near “NeverWard.”)

    if Ward wins, I will volunteer my services to “Republicans for Sinema.”

    A vote for Ward is a vote for Sinema. This is a binary choice. Do you prefer Sinema or McSally?

    A recent poll that I’ve seen shows Dr. Kelli Ward with a 9-point lead in the GOP Senate primary.

    Why are you giving her the Donald Trump treatment pray tell? This is exactly the problem with the GOP.

    You are saying the exact same thing that you did about Donald Trump throughout 2016. You were wrong.

    Yes, I would vote for Sinema over Ward in a heart beat, and would co-chair Republicans for Sinema.  

    Your choice is binary:  McSally or Sinema.

    • #119
  30. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):
    Personally speaking, I think we’ve got a President who understands human nature. Frankly, I think we’re in good hands.

    Well, the former doesn’t necessarily indicate the latter.

    A conman also understands human nature. That doesn’t mean he’d make a good president.

    I do believe we are in the process of testing that hypothesis. The Conman seems to be doing OK so far, and certainly better than the alternatives.

    Does anyone doubt that all the members in congress understand human nature? All of them have won the election to get into office and a large majority will stay in office by winning future elections. So given this fact and the logic applied by Annefy why should anyone distrust congress?

    Are we not in good hands with them?

    Maybe I’m not following you, but in what way does an election to congress prove an understanding of human nature? And even if it does, my point is much bigger.

    To previous comments, yes, of course a con man also understands human nature.

    The reason I think we’re in good hands is not just because President Trump understands human nature. That’s one reason. I also believe that he wants what’s best for America and will use his understanding of human nature and persuasion skills to that end.

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.