Jim Deakin Vs. John McCain Vs. J.D. Hayworth : Nanny-Nanny-Boo-Boo!

A brief side trip before we get to discussing Jim Deakin, John McCain, OR J.D. Hayworth: My wife happened to catch a political commercial yesterday you are not going to believe. Unless you've seen it yourself, anyway, and maybe not then. Even Sarah Palin would cock an eyebrow at this one.

Pam was watching one of her soap opera channels, meaning either NBC or CBS (she's boycotting ABC) when a Gabrielle Giffords attack ad targeting Jonathan Paton aired. That's CD8, the House race--of course--and not the Senate primary we want to cover on this page. Patience. We'll get there.

She'd never seen any ad as bizarre as this one. The producers had Gaby saying bad things about Paton. Nothing new there, but get this:

1. Gaby was dancing around while she delivered her pitch.

2. She was depicted half-and-half. That is, half of the time as her "real" self and half of the time as an animated character.

3. After delivering each attack line, she finished up with an unbelievable utterance: "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo! Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!"

Honest. I didn't make this up, and neither did Pam. She is mentally ill (and doesn't mind me saying so in print), but she's not that crazy!!

Hold on. We're about to get to Jim Deakin and the rest of the candidates, whoever they might be. First, though, my lady and I agree the ad was absolutely Twilight Zone material and has likely already been pulled after a few hundred Giffords supporters recoiled in horror--so, if any of you happened to catch that commercial, please let us know. It'll keep my readers from assuming I've lost it. We don't expect anyone on the left to admit it ever existed.

All right. Know what I think? I think that juvenile wording was "code speak" for "Nanny State! Nanny State!" We all know, of course, that a "boo-boo" is an "owie"...and for conservatives, there's no bigger owie in the Universe than seeing America jam-rammed into ever greater Nanny Statism.

Bottom line: Like every Democrat, like every RINO (think McCain), like every "dry spender"--that's like a "dry drunk", meaning someone who is trying to move toward conservatism but not finding it an easy process (think Hayworth)...like ALL of these people and so terribly many more, they're laughing at us. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!

I don't like that very much. Neither, I strongly suspect, does Jim Deakin. And now, on August 24, we have an opportunity to do something about it.

In any intense conflict, all you have to do to win the contest is convince the other guy he's going to lose. Whether you're a boxer, a soldier, a Chess champion, an Amway salesman, or a voter in Arizona's Republican primary on August 24, the principle remains the same. Precisely the same.

IF YOU ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE CONVINCED BY ENEMY PROPAGANDA THAT YOU CAN'T NOMINATE THE CANDIDATE YOU'D PREFER...YOU'LL BE RIGHT.

IF YOU KNOW YOU HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE YOUR OWN PERSONAL UNIVERSE INCLUDING THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE OF YOUR CHOICE...YOU'LL BE RIGHT.

Okay, okay, I know. Even though I'm personally voting for The Deakin on August 24, that's enough preaching. I hate people preaching "at me", and this is sliding perilously close to the precipice.

For a wind-down, how about this? At our Tea Party meeting in Palominas last Monday evening, Jim Deakin was asked what he would like to see changed in the U.S. Constitution, should he have magical and absolute power to change it any way he liked. He responded that the Fourteenth Amendment did not need changing--the anchor baby issue could be addressed legislatively--but that he would be in favor of repealing two (and only two) of the Amendments, specifically the Sixteenth and Seventeenth.

In other words, get rid of the Internal Revenue Service (which would allow our country to institute something like the Fair Tax) and quit electing Senators directly--go back to the original system of having the various state legislatures appoint the Senators.

Sounds good to me.

Jim Deakin 2010.