Last fall a television news host advised viewers to “fasten their seat belts” because they were now in the exciting final countdown to the presidential election – which was at that point fifteen months in the future!
Strange as it once would have seemed, the comment actually made some sense because the news cycle had been filled for three years with daily analysis of the latest poll results and speculation from the campaign trail. Somehow, we have bumbled our way into extraordinarily long election seasons.
Endless campaigns have not evolved in response to public demands or the efforts of good government reformers. On the contrary, a majority of Americans report feeling fatigued and believe that presidential campaigns run too long.
It wasn’t always this way, of course. Presidential candidates were originally chosen by Congress. By the mid-19th century, national parties had formed, and candidates were selected in smoke-filled rooms at their conventions. After WWII, presidential primaries emerged as a way for rank-and-file party members to participate in the selection process.
By 1960, there were 16 state primaries. John F. Kennedy was nominated when his strong showing in West Virginia convinced Democrats a Catholic could be a viable candidate. After Democrats changed the rules following the contentious 1968 convention, even more states began conducting primaries.
Each new reform had the effect of lengthening the campaign season. In 1976, Jimmy Carter, the obscure governor of Georgia, won the nomination by getting a jump on the competition in the January Iowa caucuses. Ambitious politicians ever since have taken note.
In the late 20th century, the race among states to bolster their influence by holding earlier primaries was on. By 2008, four-fifths of the states were conducting their primaries by March.
Campaigns begin long before the primaries. Active campaign staffs for the 2024 election by now have been operating for years. In the past, early in the election year was often the time candidates declared. This year, the train has left the station already. Deadlines for many primaries have passed. It would take a Herculean effort to jumpstart a campaign at this point.
Some commentators applaud the democratization of the candidate selection process. But super long campaigns have several unfortunate consequences.
Financing a long campaign is a money draining effort that favors deep pockets. Most candidates are unable to self-fund, so they are obliged to spend immense amounts of time and do lots of promising to raise the necessary millions.
Voters may complain about campaign length, but the media are fine with it. Horse race stories are easy to write and sell well because they are simple to understand and naturally involve human interest as the candidates become known to voters.
Meanwhile, stories which are consequential for all Americans, like the deliberations of the Federal Reserve Board, the growing bellicosity of America’s existential enemies, or the details of energy policy get scant attention.
Campaigns affect governance too. It’s well known that the more challenging, risky issues are harder to tackle in an election year. When every year is in effect an election year, then it’s never the right time to do the heavy lifting.
Forgiving student debt and paying outrageous, unwise sums for hostage ransoms, especially for celebrities, is catnip for weak, vote-seeking politicians. On the other hand, anything that reeks of fiscal restraint or sacrifice for the future public good is studiously ignored. Entitlement reform is out of the question.
Campaigns could theoretically be defended for allowing voters to more thoroughly vet the candidates and so make better-informed decisions. But it doesn’t seem to work that way. We have elected mostly mediocrities in the last half century. The process this cycle seems to be producing is the most incompetent, dishonest, and disliked candidates in memory. We can do better.
Other modern democracies don’t subject themselves to such an exhausting ordeal. Elections in Canada, the UK, and Australia, all admittedly parliamentary systems, are legally limited to about six weeks. Nobody is clamoring for longer elections in these countries.
America has short presidential terms and long election seasons. As inertia and populism continue to dog our politics and the problems pile up, maybe we also should consider limiting our costly, dysfunctional campaigns.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Residents in Arizona public school districts are engaged in a spiritual and moral battle. Some are determined to advance an insidious LGBT agenda, but I choose to fight on the side of God and those who love children. So, when left-wing journalist Richard Ruelas published this sleazy article, I felt it was my duty as a truth-teller to respond in earnest.
First, I’ll clarify for equity cheerleader Ruelas that I didn’t coin the expression “pedophiles by proxy” during the Higley Unified School District (HUSD) board meeting. I initially used the phrase while exposing the shenanigans of Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) Board President David Sandoval and Board Members Bill Sorensen and Melissa Ewing, who refused to read a physical privacy policy. The trio also failed to properly handle community concerns when public records revealed a district attorney advised Executive Director of Education, Christina Lopezlira, to inform administrators of “emerging practices for supporting transgender students,” and to “amicably address the competing interests and rights” of parents who object.
During the Title IX presentation on March 9, 2023, PUSD legal advisor, Lisa Anne Smith, confessed that SCOTUS (still) has not ruled on any case that permits or mandates biological boys and girls to share private spaces at school. This fact was reiterated by Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne.
Furthermore, HUSD Board President Tiffany Shultz and Board Member Amanda Wade mocked a proposal for an enhanced dress code, agreeing that it would “sexualize students’ bodies.” Shultz and Wade also agreed that educators’ attempts to regulate indecent and disruptive clothing was a “waste of time.” Wade even advocated for removing the word “immoral” from policies that govern electronic communications between students and district employees. It’s absurd how public servants dismiss concerns from parents and teachers who want to protect children.
Reading Ruelas’ junk mail reminded me of my conversation with Liberty Elementary School District (LESD) Board President Michael Todd. He told me the conservative majority board was “trying to clean house” and that I was “late reporting” on his cross-dressing colleague, Paul Bixler. At this point, Bixler had served on the board two years, had already achieved state-level exposure during a House Education Committee meeting and was trending nationally after invading a female locker room. Todd assured me, “I’ve not ever seen Paul go into a women’s restroom on school grounds. Did I see him go into one at a hotel at a conference, yes I did…but that’s not at our schools.” Hmm…I guess I’ll never know (or care) what spooked Mr. Todd. Suffice to say, it was highly suspicious and unprofessional when this duly elected official threatened to resign over a belated news story.
The Ruelas article also sparked frustrations over responses from Chandler Unified School District Board Member Kurt Rohrs. Parents I spoke with said his position on allowing male and female students to share private spaces is unclear. Ruelas claims Rohrs said “he would not ask the board to enact a [bathroom] policy because it would violate federal law,” and that “the discussion about the issue isn’t rooted in fact.” Rohrs is quoted directly stating, “‘Parents are reacting this way because they are fearful. It’s clearly not rational. It’s emotional.’” At a glance, Rohrs’ comments come across dismissive and calloused. But keep in mind that Ruelas is a pretentious jester on a mission to distract everyone from the severe consequences of transgender ideology.
What happened twice in Loudoun County is a fact. What happened in Appomattox County is a fact. What happened in Vermont is a fact. What happened in Oklahoma is a fact. What happened in New Mexico is a fact. What happened in California is a fact. What’s happening in Arizona is a fact. So, I’d say irrational describes the diabolic social experiment that’s been deployed against America’s youth. And I’d say, if your kids are exposed to or assaulted by a member of the opposite sex on school grounds, you should be emotional about it! Ring every district phone, fill every inbox, darken every doorway, occupy every board meeting, alert the media, pull your kids out, sue that government-funded hotbed. Somebody is bound to get the message.
In general, board members looking for “middle ground” on school bathrooms are in for a turbulent 2024. When it comes to the safety and innocence of children, I implore you not to run as a conservative if you’re going to govern like a moderate. Your credibility will be shot, and your career will end in disgrace. There’s no such thing as moderate morality. You either have dignity and common sense, or you want boys and girls to share private spaces at school. You either believe parents have rights in public education, or you’re pro-government. You’ve either read the Title IX transcript and know that the corrupt Ninth Circuit ruling needs to be overturned, or you’re not up for the fight.
Of course, fiscal responsibility, increasing enrollments, and improving test scores are important. But these are not primary concerns for most parents. Preventing rape, violent assaults, hypersexualized curriculum, secret teacher-student relationships, and other exploitive behaviors are the leading issues in education right now. If these matters directly affect your district but you’re not in the majority (or you have a dissenting opinion), the best you can do is make coherent public comments, introduce constitutional policies, and cast votes that convey logical consistency to your constituents.
The worst you can do is entrust the verity of your statements to a narrative pirate like Richard Ruelas.
I want to highlight the passion and prowess of one board member who persisted in taking corrupt colleagues and administrators to task for their reckless policies and predatory practices. On November 21, 2023, America First Legal (AFL) announced that Mesa Public Schools (MPS) Board Member Rachel Walden is suing her district. The Arizona Sun Times reported that AFL “is representing Walden in her Maricopa County Superior Court lawsuit against [MPS] and Superintendent Andi Fourlis, which alleges they schemed to circumvent the Arizona Parents’ Bill of Rights after the community learned it was blocking parental notifications.” The MPS transgender support plan—adopted in 2015 without parental knowledge or consent—is dangerous, unlawful, and immoral. To grasp how radical MPS has become, read the Sun Times article alongside Walden’s opinion editorial and Mesa school board candidate Ed Steele’s analysis.
Teachers and Counselors should NOT suggest putting children on a transgender support plan but that is happening. Parents will not be notified. This is the meeting last night. I was prohibited from talking to the district lawyer under "legal advice." pic.twitter.com/qUPWZyCgAa
— Rachel Walden – Candidate AZ Corp Comm (@waldenpatriot) May 11, 2023
Using public education to push transgenderism on children is pure evil. Discussions on human sexuality are the primary responsibility of parents, not the government. Swapping clothes and pronouns, taking puberty blockers, and undergoing sex reassignment surgeries does not change the biblical, biological, and binary reality that dysphoric people are trying to escape. Moreover, unrestricted access to private spaces with members of the opposite sex is not a prescription for gender confusion. And pretending to be something you’re not will never cure suicidal ideations. Despite the U.S. Department of Education’s misinterpretation of the Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia case, and their ludicrous Title IX amendment proposal, forcing male and female students to share bathrooms is not the law of the land.
Parents, when hardened LGBT activists say they’re coming for your children, believe them. Invest time researching this issue and avoid gaslighting anecdotes like those propagated by the Arizona Republic. Before you openly chastise any board member, make sure you have sound knowledge and understanding of the Constitution, state laws, and district policies. Let’s continue to stand up together and push back against this present darkness.
I’ll see you in the boardrooms.
For nearly two decades, Tiffany Benson’s creative writing pursuits have surpassed all other interests. When she’s not investigating Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories, she enjoys journaling and contributing to her blog Bigviewsmallwindow.com. She encourages average citizens to take on an active role in the grassroots fight for future generations.
After several years of inflated budgets propped up by trillions in unsustainable COVID cash flowing to the states from the federal government, Arizona lawmakers will be coming into the new year and the new legislative session facing a potential shortfall for the budget year in excess of $400 million. Naturally, the left and their sycophants in the media have for months been decrying this to be the result of 1) historic tax cuts enacted by Republicans in 2021 and 2) the successful universal expansion of school choice in 2022. This couldn’t be further from the truth, and there are three key facts that need to be remembered when discussing the state budget and a potential funding gap.
1. The Shortfall Is a Fraction of the Arizona Budget, Nothing Like California’s Crisis
The projected $400 million shortfall represents less than 5% of the total state budget, which spends $17.8 billion this year. Far from catastrophic. Compare this to our neighbor California, facing a $68 billion dollar deficit (nearly four times the size of our entire budget), which represents 22% of their $308 billion bloated budget – up from less than $200 billion only four years ago.
Opposite to our approach, California has continuously increased taxes, having one of the highest income tax burdens in the country. They also don’t provide choice to parents and families to make educational decisions themselves. Surely, if Arizona taking less of the people’s hard-earned money and providing ESAs to all families is the cause of our small funding gap, California, doing the exact opposite, should place them in tip top shape, right?
Imagine a future where abortion is sanctioned until the very moment of birth, parental consent becomes a relic of the past, and taxpayers foot the bill for all abortions.This is not a distant dystopia; it is the gruesome reality that will unfold if a new controversial amendment—the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment—finds its way onto our state’s ballot this November. Now, Arizona voters stand at a crossroads—sign a petition to advance the possibility of this horrific amendment to the Arizona Constitution or decline to sign the petition and stand for the sanctity of life.
The heart of this matter lies in the proposed amendment’s language, asserting, “Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion…” This means that if it gets passed, the Arizona Constitution will be amended to make abortion a fundamental right for all individuals. The amendment’s text also explicitly states that the State shall not enact, adopt, or enforce any law, regulation, policy, or practice that “denies, restricts, or interferes with an abortion after fetal viability that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.”
This means that if this amendment passes, it will not only embed abortion as a fundamental right in our state Constitution, but it will remove any constraints on the abortion industry. Just read that direct quote from the proposed amendment again. The text explicitly bars the state from interfering with abortions after fetal viability, contingent upon the “judgment” of a health care professional. Is there any surprise as to why the abortion industry is championing this amendment so heavily? The removal of gestation limits offers abortion businesses unrestricted access to perform abortions at any stage without legal impediments, which will give them significant economic and financial benefits!
Analyzing the language of the amendment reveals three major implications:
Abortion up until birth.
Abortion with no requirement for parental knowledge and/or consent.
Abortion completely funded by taxpayers.
Under this proposed amendment, a 15-year-old girl could abort her baby up until the time of birth, without her parent’s knowledge or consent, and send the bill to taxpayers. That’s not only dangerous, it’s insane.
Proponents of the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment assert that the amendment’s primary objective is to save the mother’s life; however, upon closer examination, the amendment intentionally misleads voters by instilling an urgent fear that the mother’s life is at risk. Anthony Levatino, MD, JD, a board-certified obstetrician gynecologist, challenges this perspective, stating, “There are several serious conditions that can arise or worsen typically during the late second or third trimester of pregnancy that require immediate care. In many of those cases, ending or ‘terminating’ the pregnancy, if you prefer, can be life-saving. But is abortion a viable treatment option in this setting? I maintain that it usually, if not always, is not.” While the amendment writers want the public to believe that this amendment is necessary to save the mother’s life, clearly it’s nothing more than a sympathetic tactic to garner support.
On September 12, 2023, the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment petition campaign began. If petitioners are successful in gathering 383,923 signatures by July 3, 2024, the amendment will appear on Arizona’s ballot this November.
We can’t let that happen.
That’s why it is imperative for Arizona voters, taxpayers, and citizens to take a stand. And many pro-life organizations are doing so right now by leading a grassroots effort to educate Arizonans about why they should “Decline to Sign” this petition.
“Decline to Sign” aims to prevent the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment from even reaching the ballotby engaging in extensive education and awareness efforts. Volunteers associated with this grassroots initiative are dedicated to approaching Arizona voters, taxpayers, and citizens with kindness and providing a comprehensive understanding of the proposed amendment’s potential consequences. “Decline to Sign” volunteers believe that once the proposed amendment’s true nature is revealed, Arizona voters, taxpayers, and citizens can make an educated and informed decision whether to support, or not to support, the proposed amendment. The “Decline to Sign” initiative challenges the proposed amendment’s false impression that it advocates solely for “women’s reproductive health.” The “Decline to Sign” initiative also seeks to shed light on the proposed amendment’s harsh and permanent implications.
The proposed Arizona Abortion Access Amendment presents a crucial juncture in the ongoing discourse about the sanctity of life. As the petition process unfolds, Arizona voters, taxpayers, and citizens face the responsibility to protect the sanctity of life in our state and ensure that the voices of all life within the community are heard.
Katarina White serves as Legislative District Co-Chair for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed with the “Decline to Sign” initiative, visit the Arizona Right to Life website. Katarina also delves deeper into the proposed amendment through the “Conservative Seoul Show,” where she presents the “Sanctity Unveiled” segment. You can join her as she explores the challenges faced by the sanctity of life in the State of Arizona here.
In a story that seems to be becoming increasingly common as time goes on, The Western Journal reported this week about a Canadian EV owner experiencing some massive sticker shock over the cost of replacing the damaged battery in his electric vehicle.
Now, those of us who have always driven internal combustion engine (ICE) cars have at one time or another been faced with big repair bills for some of those vehicles. I can remember spending $4,000 on a new radiator for a 10-year-old Infiniti QX 50 with 220,000 miles on it that I just couldn’t bear to part with several years back. I did finally retire that wonderful vehicle when faced with the prospect of a $6,000 tag for a rebuilt transmission.
So, all cars will eventually cost you or your insurance company big money to repair — no one is saying that’s unique to EVs. But where EVs are concerned, it’s the magnitude of the price for replacing a damaged or worn-out battery that is often quite eye-popping.
I wrote a story in September about a fellow in the U.S. deciding to junk his paid-off EV when he got an estimate of $30k to replace his battery. We now see frequent reports that auto insurance companies are charging higher rates for EVs than for comparable ICE cars due in large part to this extravagant battery replacement cost.
If you think that $30,000 is extravagant, well, get ready, because it apparently isn’t even close to the worst-case scenario. Per the Western Journal, a Canadian man, Kyle Hsu, paid roughly $55,000 Canadian ($41,583 US) in 2022 to buy a brand new Hyundai IONIQ 5. But, less than a year later, Mr. Hsu was involved in what seemed to be a minor accident resulting in superficial damage to his beautiful EV.
Unfortunately for Hsu, it turned out that the battery protector cover on his car’s undercarriage was warped, a problem that could in certain instances cause the battery to explode. This meant that he would have to replace his car’s battery pack in addition to fixing its structural damage. Hsu says he was shocked when the estimate to replace the battery came in at $61,000 Canadian, or about $46,000 in US dollars. That’s almost $6,000 more than he paid for the car when he purchased it brand new.
Even worse, because the damage was caused by an accident, the bill was not covered by the car’s warranty, leaving Hsu with the alternative of filing a claim with his insurance carrier. But the resulting insurance implications were enormous, with Mr. Hsu facing a rate increase of up to 50% if he filed the claim. His only other choice would be to foot the repair bill himself and now have over $87,000 US dollars invested in a $41,000 car.
This is insane. This is not sustainable. The EV industry simply cannot have stories like this one popping up with increasing frequency and hope to sustain growing demand for its products.
When you combine horror stories like this one with:
range anxiety that pops up any time the weather isn’t perfect;
the lack of charging infrastructure;
the unreliability of the infrastructure that does exist;
the non-recyclability of the battery materials;
the increasing restrictions on charging due to the massive load EVs place on the grid;
and all the other significant issues EV makers have yet to address,
you see an industry that is almost doomed to failure before it really gets up and running.
I frequently remind readers that EVs have been around since the 1880s. They are not a new idea in any sense of that word. If they were really the answer to displacing ICE cars at societal scale, it seems likely they would have already done so. What we see popping up with increasing frequency now in the form of stories like this one are simply manifestations of the reasons why that has not already happened.
EVs today are what they have always been: A niche product, a luxury item suitable to fill discreet purposes for the upper 5% or so elites in any society. The technology simply is not there yet to make them anything more than that.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Arizona’s minimum wage was $13.85 in 2023, up from $12.80 per hour in 2022. On January 1, 2024, minimum wage in State 48 will be raised another 50 cents to $14.35 per hour. This increase will happen despite the fact that Arizona’s inflation rate in 2023 was lower than the national average. That’s because Arizona is a state that raises minimum wage following the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index (CPI). This means that our state follows the inflation rate of the entire country instead of the localized state-level inflation rate. But now, a new group is pushing to ensure that Arizona’s minimum wage grows astronomically higher.
Back on November 7, 2022, a group named Raise the Wage AZ introduced a measure called The One Fair Wage Act. This state-initiated statute, which could be on the ballot in 2024, proposes raising the minimum wage to a staggering $18 per hour. Within this act, it explicitly states, “The One Fair Wage Act raises the minimum wage by $1 over cost of living increases in 2025 and 2026 and leaves cost of living increases in place thereafter.” By 2025 and 2026, the cost of living in Arizona could very well be one of the highest in the nation because of the Phoenix metro area.
Another part of the act is something that will leave many small business owners feeling extremely concerned. It states: “The Act gradually reduces the amount of the employer’s offset due to tips until the employer is required to pay the full minimum wage and employees keep all of their tips on top of that wage.” This will diminish profit margins directly for small businesses and therefore increase product costs to consumers.
It’s bad enough that small businesses have been left behind for the past three years because of mismanagement of fiscal policy and ignorance at the highest level within the federal government. They shouldn’t be expected to face another dramatic increase in minimum wage. Our state cannot fall into the same trap that California and New York fell into, letting large cities dominate secondary cities and smaller towns.
On top of this, the Biden Administration’s neglect of the southern border and immigration policy will leave people that are crossing illegally even more dependent on taxpayer-funded programs—pushing overall costs at a local level even higher. Now is not the time to raise minimum wage by such an extreme margin. This is an unfortunate initiative, because it fails to address any of these other concerns that will end up affecting Arizonans.
The reality is that The One Fair Wage Act is bad for Arizona. If this ballot initiative passes, rural Arizona will be left behind as prices increase dramatically. Small businesses will go dormant. Phoenix will become the Los Angeles of the desert. And the bar of entry to start a business in Arizona will continue to grow higher for everyday Arizonans.
Carson Carpenter is a student at Arizona State University, majoring in Political Science. He is the Vice President of ASU College Republicans and has interned for Reps. Gosar and Crane. You can follow him on Twitter here.
