First String--Updated

The local lefty bloggers are trying to produce a little pre-election spin by proclaiming that the Republican field in CD 5 is somehow weak or second tier. 

Here's Tedski's version. I’d suggest that at Harry Mitchell's re-election party next year, they serve toast.

Tedski refers to this Wacktivist post.  So far the rag-tag GOP field resembles a group of misfits at the circus freak show more than it does a field of top tier Congressional candidates.

Such transparent pre-race spin would normally not merit a response, but I realized that the local MSM reporters are so new that they might actually buy the ruse.

The real story is that Mitchell, although formidable, is widely perceived as one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the nation and has drawn a field of opponents that is stronger than generally vie for an OPEN seat. 

The 2006 race to replace Kolbe in CD 8 is a great example.  Giffords, Weiss, Graf, Hellon and Huffman had nowhere near the resumes of Anderson, Hatch-Miller, Knaperek and Schweikert. 

Indeed, although they have become prominent national figures in their own right, Kyl, Shadegg and McCain didn't initially have the experience that the Republicans in CD 5 can boast.

Here's the field. Decide for yourself.

Mark Anderson served 8 years in the State House of Representatives before being elected to the State Senate where he Chaired the Family Services Committee.  He was then re-elected to the House and Chairs the Education Committee.  So he will have served 12 years in the Legislature and Chaired two major committees.

Laura Knaperek served a total of 10 years in the House of Representatives.  She Chaired the House Appropriations Committee as well as the House Higher Education Committee.  As Tempe turned more Democratic she lost her seat, but that shouldn't be seen as a disadvantage.  A Republican will beat Mitchell by convincing Republican voters to vote for a Republican candidate.  Many of those potential defectors are in Tempe. She also has the advantage of being the only woman in the race.

Jeff Hatch-Miller served four years in the State House Representatives where he Chaired the House Committee on Energy Utilities and Technology.  In 2002, he was elected to the Arizona Corporation Commission.  He was re-elected in 2004.  His status as a state wide office holder means that his name has appeared on every ballot in CD 5 in two different elections. 

David Schweikert served four years in the Arizona House of Representatives and was chosen as House Republican Whip when he was just 30.  He ran for the CD 5 seat in 1994 and came in second to Hayworth.  He's essentially been running ever since. He served 10 years as Director of the State Board of Equalization for Symington and Hull.  In 2004 he was elected Maricopa County Treasurer by a 21 point margin.  During the campaign and first year of office, he earned his WP Carey MBA on the weekends. Like Hatch-Miller, Schweikert's name has been on every ballot and signs have been in every precinct in CD 5.  His old legislative district covered all of Scottsdale and Fountain Hills and is completely contained in CD 5. 

Jim Ogsbury is running too and he's a really nice guy.

So Who's Going to Win the Primary?

My problem is that I'm friends with all of the candidates so I have trouble being impartial.  I've known Anderson and Knaperek for many years and they are wonderful. Hatch-Miller and I have worked closely on a lot of issues while he has been at the ACC and we represented the same district in the House.  Schweikert and I have been friends for nearly 20 years. We've played about a thousand games of Racquetball, hiked the Grand Canyon 3 or 4 times and I was best man at his wedding.

They are all first-tier candidates and any of them is capable of beating Mitchell.  Based solely on the credentials that I've listed above, I think the primary would be too close to call.

However there's one huge event that was announced this afternoon and tips the balance. The Club for Growth officially endorsed Schweikert.

Today, the Club for Growth PAC endorsed former Maricopa County Treasurer and State Representative David Schweikert in Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District race.

In the State Legislature, Schweikert was a taxpayer hero. As the majority whip, he was instrumental in passing across-the-board income tax cuts and corporate income tax cuts. On spending, Schweikert has been a strong supporter of a Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights amendment and voted against his own leadership on various budget measures when he objected to excessive spending. Schweikert is also devoted to free trade, tort reform, and free-market reform of entitlement programs. David Schweikert is clearly the most pro-growth candidate in the field.

Why is that so significant?  Because the Club for Growth has serious money, plays serious hard ball and most importantly does so in Primaries.

The primary tactic of the separate Club for Growth PAC is to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress, particularly in Republican primaries.

The Club for Growth's endorsement typically adds well over $100,000 to the challenger's coffers, but in Sharron Angle's Nevada race and Tim Walberg's Michigan race, Club members contributed over $600,000.  However the real boost comes from the Club's tendency to fund independent ads that are critical of the voting records of the other Republican candidates in the field.

Schweikert has the fire in the belly--he resigned from the Treasurer's Office in order to run full time.  He has the experience; he has plenty of money and now he has the Club for Growth behind him.  I think he's the one who survives the Primary.

And Mitchell?  Mitchell is not to be underestimated.  He has an outstanding political resume and is a ruthless campaigner--just ask Gary Richardson where all his signs went.  But George Bush won CD 5 by 17 points.  The 2006 election was the mother of all perfect storms.  Napolitano was on the ballot, turnout for Gubernatorial elections is lower than presidential elections.  Jim Pederson spent a ton of money on get out the vote efforts and as much of the vote was backlash against JD as it was support of Mitchell.

Those factors are gone.  That's why you are seeing the strongest Republican field that the state has ever seen. 

UPDATE:  CBS has picked up the Club For Growth endorsement.

(The Politico) The anti-tax Club for Growth issued an early endorsement in a still-developing GOP primary for the right to challenge freshman Rep. Harry Mitchell (R-Ariz.).

They endorsed Maricopa County Treasurer Dave Schweikert, who is facing four other announced candidates for the September primary. His leading primary rival is poised to be former state Rep. Laura Knaperek. State Rep. Mark Anderson and lobbyist Jim Ogsbury have also announced their candidacies.

Comments

[Arizona law]

Like you I know all of the candidates to varying degrees. I also agree that Jim Ogsbury is a really nice guy.

I've had the opportunity to hear him speak at several events now and I've been able to talk with him.

Jim was the senior staffer for the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, which to me sounds like the most relevant experience of anyone in the race. As far as electability goes, he has the most money by 320,000 dollars (more than Jeff Flake and Trent Franks spent when they won their first primary).

Today you were worse than the Republic, and for a critic, there's no excuse.

[nick]

Wow!

[Blissful Ignorance]

I think Greg was making the point that they all have significant experience. In fact, it may be the case that Ogsbury has too much experience, in DC and in Congress. There are problems in Congress, he's been part of Congress, so he's to blame. Or so the argument goes, at least as much as his primary opponents can make of it. The R's want to win back the seat, and the "best" candidate is the one most likely to do that. That bodes well for Laura, in the opinion of sexists. It's not really about just policy or about who appeals most to primary voters. It's about effectively campaigning to remove Mitchell in the general. So you will see all our dear conservatives fighting to lean right in the primary and the winner does a 180 in 60 days until the general. Nothing new there.

[The Klute]

I'm just curious as to who gets Michelle Reagan's endorsement and thus control of her army of unkillable cryogenic zombies (an in-kind donation from the good folks at Alcor).

[Frank Rizzo]

Oxbury.... are you serious? He is an earmark lobbyist. Too much experience... at what? Making sure his lobbyist buddies get their pork?

[R.Maris]

Looks like more bad news for Schweikert's opponents... The Club's endorsement is huge! Just ask Jeff Flake. Not only should Schweikert have a solid influx of cash, the Club is known for their independent expeditures against the other candidates in the primaries that they get involved in...

Don't belive it... go look at the '06 resources that they brought to the dance!

[Eric Green]

Greg,

I love all of these candidates. But, don't be so biased against Ogsbury. Perhaps you are worried that he is most likely to beat your friend Schweikert. Ogsbury has the most cash, the most real experience and a solid conservative message.

We are lucky to have such a wonder slate of Republican candidates to choose from. I wouldn't declare any winners at this point. Neither should you.

[Tim S.]

This "most cash" argument is going to disappear pretty quickly with Schweikert's ability to raise money and self-finance (ala Ogsbury himself). Add in the Club support and "most cash" won't be applicable to Ogsbury anymore.

Then we'll be back to a carpet-bagging, earmark lobbyist... Just the guy Republicans want to run in 2008, eh? Nope... Schweikert in a rout.

[Travis]

Note to all GOP candidates: You can have all the money in the world, but if you use your resources to damage your fellow GOPers, I hope you go down in flames.

Keep your eyes on the prize - TAKE OUT MITCHELL!!

Greg is right about the perfect storm in CD5 and Harry's old strong hold in Tempe. But the air is clear now and voters have had a taste of Mitchell and he has shown his liberal stripes and his willingness to be a partisan hack. This is the perfect time to take him out. I think Knaperek can do that by using her conservative credentials to garner votes in CD5 outside D-17 and her strong record on education and social issues to get that needed Dem vote. She also has the fire in the belly to beat the snot out of Mitchell.

[Ann]

Mitchell did not win because people liked his message, they liked Harry and had grown tired of JD. CFG will send money but will it be seen as outsider influence? Who knows...and if the local folks have gotten crossways with Harry will they want someone who they see as too far removed from them if they can pick a hometown favorite and feel OK about abandoning a guy with a statue already in place?

The person who is a locally known quantity and conservative will have the upper hand. Grassroots will trump dollars in this one. Knaperak has the stamina and the people power to gt it done. She has a reputation for listening to people and responding.

I think Anderson is a very nice man and truly devoted to public service. Unfortunately, if the "Moonie" factor comes into play, the guy is a non-contender.

Hatch-Miller....nice guy, but really unknown and signs every few years make one know the name but why? If they don't know why they know your name they don't know why they need to vote for you. ACC...better have some darn good "no" votes to impress anyone.

Ogsbury had a quote from Animal House on his web page when he was at Triadvocates. When most people quote they use Whitman or Longfellow...but Otter from Animal House? That has to tell you something good about the guy.

[SonoranSam]

I can understand why it rankles the Rs to have Harry Mitchell carry a district that - on paper - is an R district.

But if you think the mood in '08 will favor Republicans, well, I guess I'm reading the tea leaves from a different cup. Some of your candidates have decent credentials. Some of them are ridiculous.

All I'll add to that is the political graveyard is filled with Republicans who under-estimated Harry Mitchell.

[Mike]

Ann,

God bless ya! Your gal doesn't have money, so the race becomes about "grassroots", "stamina", and "people power". Just curious, where were those things in her last couple of losses?

Mike

[Gman]

Greg, every analysis I've seen mentions another friend of yours, Susan Bitter Smith, as a likely candidate. Why'd you leave her off, and what are your thoughts on her chances?

[Stan Hart]

Clearly Club for Growth has done their research and found Schweikert the most capable candidate to take out Mitchell.

[CD5 person]

The last two Club for Growth candidates were both defeated handily by state legislators. In Ohio’s 5th District, Club-backed candidate state Sen. Steve Buehrer lost to state Rep. Bob Latta in this month’s GOP special election primary. And activist Paul Jost, who headed the Virginia chapter of the Club for Growth, narrowly lost the GOP nomination to succeed the late Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.) to state Del. Rob Wittman. That would seem to give the edge to State Rep. Mark Anderson

[Political Junkie]

If you want a decent analysis of what the Club's endorsement means, check this out:

http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=1681#respond

[Ann]

Mike,

Without money...there isn't enough grassroots to win any race no matter how good you are. Without grassroots, there isn't enough money to substitute.

There has been more than one congressman elected because of good ol' fashioned shoe leather even in the face of a well connected and well financed opponent in the primary.

[Just Curious...]

Why did the Club for Growth rush out an endorsement for Schweikert? Not all of the candidates are even in yet. Hatch-Miller and maybe even Bitter-Smith are due to jump in in January. Why would the Club endorse without talking with all of the candidates in the race?

[Thane Eichenauer]

Possible but I don't think so: 2006 was the mother of perfect storm. (isn't the concept of perfect storm enough - does it have to be the "mother of all perfect storms")

I think Mitchell won because of one reason more than any others: voters wanted to vote for any candidate who wasn't pro-war JD Hayworth (and weren't confident enough to vote pro-peace Libertarian Warren Severin like I did). The result is that pro-war Harry Mitchell won. I am sure that plenty of voters deluded themselves into hoping that Harry Mitchell was pro-peace because he was a Democrat (and even more depressing still think that Democrats are pro-peace by default).

[Mike]

Just Curious,

I cant' speak to Hatch Miller, but I would assume that since they took a pass on Bitter Smith in 2000, they probaby werent' going to go with her.

[Bill]

Did you know that in a recent poll that 25% of Americans believe that congress is doing a good job. That means that the majority of people are disenchanted with "Washington Politics." I believe one of the main issues in the upcoming election will be based on being fiscally conservative. The core of fiscal conservative values is manifested within the Club for Growth.

I believe Ogsbury will have an extremely tough time getting around the fact that he has been apart of "the mess" in washington and that he is a lobbyist. I cannot wait to view Ogsbury's financial statements for his campaign, I have a feeling we are going to see alot of out of state donations and a large amount of lobbying groups contributing to his campaign. The money is great, I won't dispute that, but you have to look at where the money is coming from... If anything, his resume is more of a negative than a positive in my opinion. We shall have to wait and see if my prediction is accurate. Only time will tell.

[ron]

Greg, you wrote,

"However the real boost comes from the Club's tendency to fund independent ads that are critical of the voting records of the other Republican candidates in the field."

Translation: there will be lots of mud-slinging going on for about six months next year which will weary the public of the whole lot.

Which means Mitchell will look like a 'breath of fresh air'.

Note: for many folks 'Club for Growth' actually stands for "Greed for Growth'.