JD thought he was hip
For lobbyists he's do a back flip
the doc says, "Your fat,
we'll take care of that,
but we really should staple your lip." 

—————————————

JD likes his cash
That he knows he can raise in a flash
with Abramhoff he would take
all the Indians could make
in order to pad his own stash 

————————————————-

JD though it made sense
that immigration worked as henced,
"They are all greedy slobs,
that want the best jobs,
and that's why they're jumping the fence." 

—————————————————-

JD was awfully quick
to dismiss stem cells with a flick
"We can't use these children
to save all the millions,
unless my family get's sick."

——————————————

JD loves corporations so
that he wanted to give them some dough
His tax cuts were deep
which made millionaires weep
and say, "Thank you, you government ho!" 

You, as a resident of District 5, what have you gained from this war in Iraq?  Inflation?  An unstable stock market? Is the yellow troops ribbon scratching your car trunk?  Compare that against the loss of 2,500 American soldier's lives, 18,358 other soldiers wounded in action, and 300 Billion dollars and counting.  Is it an equitable trade?

You may believe the US is stopping terrorism by fighting this war in Iraq, however just this month Al Queda planned to storm the Canadian Parliament building and behead the Prime Minister.  One year ago this month the London Subway was bombed by Al Queda killing 40 and wounding 700.  How is a war in Iraq going to stop the uncurtailed flow of immigrants through the Mexican and Canadian borders?

When Governor Napalatano wanted to rename the Sqaw Peak Parkway, Piestawa Peak Parkway after the first woman killed in Iraq, everyone jumped up and down and called it a political stunt.  However, when a resolution comes to congress (specifically HR 861) proclaiming that the Congress refuses to attempt to end a war of questionable merit, that reaches the very bottom of the barrel.

And who will you find at the very bottom of this barrel of ignorance?  Why, that would be JD Hayworth.  When the composer of HR 861 tried to sweeten the deal on staying indefinitely in Iraq by throwing in some arbitrary language about honoring our troops, JD took the bait hook, line, and sinker.  JD's site quotes him with regard to HR 861:

"The American soldier does not falter, does not hide, and does not quit. Neither should we. That is why I voted in favor of this resolution.

"Terrorism doesn't have an expiration date. September 11th made us realize that the cancer that is terrorism is now a part of our world and must be eradicated no matter how long takes. You don't put a timetable on the safety and security of our nation and citizens."

According to JD because of September 11^th (a terrorist act that even our President admits had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq) has simply occurred, we must stay and fight in Iraq forever.  Right.  That makes sense.

Just a few months ago, JD bragged on his web site that he actually had a hand in writing the Medicare prescription drug plan that went into effect last January.  He has since taken it down in denial, but from the archive of his old web site JD touts:

Helping seniors enjoy improved health is an obligation from one generation to another and it is a prudent investment that will relieve pressure on our overburdened healthcare system. Assuring seniors of access to more affordable medicine is a national reaffirmation of the common sense principle that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. J.D. Hayworth believes the Medicare prescription drug benefit is a good plan for seniors and was pleased to help craft this important new law as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. It provides immediate savings through the prescription drug discount card; a guaranteed universally available drug benefit beginning in 2006; low-income assistance to help the neediest seniors; preventive care and disease management; and health savings accounts. It is the most important improvement in Medicare in a generation.

Common sense is obviously out the window with JD Hayworth.  Either he was too obtuse to understand the consequences of his actions, or his goal was to enrich the drug companies.  Either one is equally deplorable.

The bottom line is the new Medicare prescription drug benefit not only disallows the US Government to negotiate prices with the drug companies (thereby increasing their profits considerably), it is a nightmare to implement because of the poorly thought out procedures in the law.

The situation has grown so critical that in January the Bush administration had to order private Medicare drug-plan insurers to cover an emergency 30-day refill of prescriptions and cap co-pays for low-income seniors at $5. Since the benefit began on Jan. 1, countless needy beneficiaries have been charged excessive fees or denied coverage altogether.  The States have had to bear those costs.

The fiasco is so bad, the Federal Government has had to promise the states reimbursement for picking up the tab due to confusion.  The because of the lack of trust in the Federal government, bipartisan legislation was introduced in the Senate to force the federal government to reimburse states picking up the tab for seniors who can’t get their medications because of flaws in the new Medicare prescription drug program.

After the States and the Feds quit picking up the tab for their mistakes, according to Jeanne Finberg, supervising attorney for the National Senior Citizens Law Center, if Seniors don't know to act, she says, they'll find themselves in trouble when they go to get that prescription refilled.

The next time legislation more important than putting Ronald Regan’s face on the ten dollar bill comes along, can you trust JD to make the right decisions?  His record tell us NO!  JD can't be trusted with important decisions concerning the citizens of CD 5.

Same sex marriage is just not as evil as it used to be, according to JD Hayworth's latest stand on gay marriage.  When the Republicans were all-powerful in 2004, JD was happy to ride the wave. 

On Meet The Press, February 25, 2004, JD attacked Senators Edwards and Kennedy calling them liars and implied that they could not possibly be against same sex marriage because they were not supporting the recent Senate Resolution 275 calling for a ban and an amendment.  Here are the words from JD Hayworth's mouth that day:

REP. J.D. HAYWORTH (R), ARIZONA: What we've seen is an attack on marriage. And it's been very interesting, the dynamic, Bill, because what you essentially have is four members of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, then the mayor of San Francisco going ahead with gay marriages. And what's interesting is, if you take a look at the constitution, there's something known as the full faith and credit clause. And this is where folks like Senators Edwards and Kerry get in trouble.

They say they oppose gay marriage or oppose same-sex marriage, but they're not willing to take the constitutional amendment that is necessary to prevent Massachusetts or San Francisco from forcing the rest of the country to accept same-sex marriage.

He just recently took down his position from his web site that he is in support of a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.  Here is what JD believed religiously for the past 3 years:

J.D. Hayworth opposes same-sex marriage and supports a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only between one man and one woman. Same-sex marriage would separate marriage from parenthood and send a signal that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including multiple spouses, is acceptable. Same-sex marriage would render the constitution meaningless. Since radical judges in Massachusetts sought to impose same-sex marriage on the American people by judicial fiat and against their will, and a constitutional amendment is the only means to ensure that marriage is protected and that the people’s voice will be heard.

That was then.  Who cares about it now?  JD has totally filp-flopped on this issue.  Just as recent at March of 2005 some Republicans in the house (specifically Rep Dan Lungren) have introduced legislation calling for a constitutional amendment.  That reads very similar to JD's previous mission described above. 

Here is some text from HR Res 39 introduced March of 2005 that reads very similar to the JD mission recently removed from his website:

SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of a legal union of one man and one woman.

SECTION 2. No court of the United States or of any State shall have jurisdiction to determine whether this Constitution or the constitution of any State requires that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any union other than a legal union between one man and one woman.

SECTION 3. No State shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State concerning a union between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage, or as having the legal incidents of marriage, under the laws of such other State.

This bill has 20 Co-Sponsors, but JD Hayworth is not on the list.  I guess he has changed his mind.  He is running from the forces of yesterday and jumping on today's bandwagon.  All that passion wasted.  Too bad.  

On March 2, JD Hayworth voted yes on HR4167. The intent of this bill is to federalize the current state-regulated food-safety and labeling laws. HR4167 has a provision that repeals tougher state laws in favor of looser federal standards.

A group of 37 state attorneys general, Republican and Democrat, sent a letter to Congress on March 1 warning that the measure could undermine state’s rights and consumer protection. Part of the letter states:

Important consumer warnings about mercury in fish, arsenic in drinking water and lead in cans are just a few examples of state food labeling requirements that would be eviscerated by this bill

Critics of the bill, however, describe the legislation as an effort by food manufacturers to undo many state laws and regulations they previously opposed.

“The real effect of this legislation will be the deregulation of the United States food industry,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles.

The food industry has been lobbying Congress to pass similar legislation for two decades. Supporters of the bill include industry giants such as Nestle USA, the HJ Heinz Co., Kraft Foods and Sara Lee Corp., as well as supermarket chains and trade associations that have joined to form the National Uniformity for Food Coalition.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that at least 200 state laws or regulations could be invalidated by the new measure.