Whew, I'm still running around doing interview after interview, debate after debate... and that isn't counting the hours of planning and hard work behind the scenes. Here are a few of the many radio interviews that were done recently:
Well, Ken can't say I didn't give him plenty of warning...
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:34:26 -0700
From: Barry Hess Organization: HessForGovernor.Com To: "Ken Western, Editor of AZ Republic" <ken.western@arizonarepublic.com> Subject: Profile?
Dear Ken;
Just so there is no question, I want you to know that this message is being sent to many members of the press/media and other interested parties.
In speaking with Mr. Tupper today, it came up that the Arizona Republic had run full page profiles on Len Munsil and Janet Napolitano in the last two Sunday editions of your paper and that "mine" was to run tomorrow--Monday. What's up with that? Monday? Doesn't Sunday have different circulation numbers? Could such a thing be called "fair and equal" coverage?
My interpretation of such an event could only be as advertising for the Democrat/Republican Party candidates in violation of a myriad of campaign laws.
I find all this a bit odd since when Matthew Benson called, we only talked briefly and he assured me that he would be calling back to do an interview for my profile--he hasn't. If the Republic plans on such a run, I insist that it refrain from doing so since he did not do an interview and it could only be construed as fraud upon the public.
I came across this today, and knew I had to share it. We'll be linking to more news stories how about there isn't much difference between the 2 sides, but this just says it so well in a nutshell.
As the Arizona Gubernatorial election heats up, Todd Hartley of PHX News had a conversation with Libertarian candidate Barry Hess.
They discussed his approach to fixing Arizona’s education system, how in just four years Governor Janet Napolitano has taken our schools and made them the worst in the nation, how he'll end your state income tax, why he's the best prepared to save our state and how Don Goldwater is trying to morph Barry’s best ideas into his Goldwater campaign.
I had to go to countless forums, symposiums, panel discussions and rallies, both for and against Arizona’s Clean Elections law, to get a grip on the major mis/perceptions, good intentions, justifications and motivations of those involved, but I think I finally have.
At an event at the (Barry) Goldwater Institute, I got the final piece of the puzzle from the head honcho of the bureaucracy created to implement and oversee this new function of government. I needed to know the justification for continuing on with a program that did not show us the immediate and substantial improvements in candidate choices we were told we would see by its original promoters.
Cute Trick, Ken. Stupid, but cute in a very childish way. Tying the Bill of Rights Monument bill to the Republican budget (a 19% increase when it should have been cut) so Janet, (whose equally repugnant budget proposal of a 21% increase) will veto it just so your can say, "She vetoed the Bill of Rights" was not a good choice of tactics. Janet does not need your help in proving the incompetence of her administration.
I told you of my commitment on this issue, and I intend to make good on it. You obviously think that your termed out lame duck status makes YOU immune to political opposition and activism--and maybe it does. But you might want to reconsider, on behalf of the Republicans you leave behind. The lists of those specific members who went along with these shenanigans are already being drawn up. They WILL suffer for your actions in the polls. Do you really want to be 'the guy who destroyed the Republican Party in Arizona?' If so, I predict you are well on your way.
Only my sadness held back the hysterics elicited by Jon Talton's column "Decline and fall of Mesa" (Opinions, May 21).
As I read his words, I could hear the tantrums of a 4-year-old who didn't get his way or who came to the realization that "his" opinion was completely irrelevant.
When the good residents of Mesa rebuked the attempt by politicians to tax their property and put a huge number of senior citizens over the economic edge, the writer wished to make Mesa disappear. He correctly identified the libertarian effort to constrain public "servants" to their assigned tasks and to follow the law of the constitutional charter, but he still missed the point completely.
Where Talton went terribly awry was in assuming that his concept of building pretty places at the expense of the quality of life of those called upon to pay for such whims had any moral, rational, legal or honest leg on which to stand.
Because the people of Mesa finally took a stand against marauding politicians, the writer's ire leads him into a rant of damn near casting an evil spell, an ancient curse or a pox upon them. The reader can hear him screeching like his tail got caught in the door as he gasps that libraries and museums would be shut down and the indefinable "poor" would have to foot an imaginary burden somehow created by the people doing nothing - the usual bogus liberal chant.
Maybe someone should tell this history-deficient comic character that our library system and most museums were set up and paid for privately. That's the reason they used to be so good.
He laments that no one in his liberal world seemed to notice that Mesa residents took Nancy Reagan's sage advice to "Just say no!" to self-destruction and finally took a principled stand.
The laughs just keep coming as he forwards the nonsensical notion that there might be a shred of truth to the supposition that light-rail has even one redeeming benefit . . . except for those on the receiving end of the people's money to build such boondoggles.
Should we tell him that before construction has even started on this misguided adventure in social experimentation, it's already heading toward $100 million in cost overruns?
Should we tell him that these aren't "cost overruns," they were well known to the planners who simply decided to not tell the public it was going to be a lot more expensive then the politicians told us?
Not content to whine about the rejection of new property taxes and the light-rail scam, the writer goes on to suggest that universities should resemble the Taj Mahal, not a useful facility, and then into a litany of his frustrations with people in whom the spark of individual freedom and respect for private property rights still smolders.
The one that stands out is this assertion: "The free-lunch promise of the anti-tax right remains seductive. Gone is the American presumption that with property ownership comes special obligations to the community. It only delivers failure."
This media spinmanship is a real knee-slapper since he is the one from the "free lunch" (at everyone else's expense) crowd who doesn't seem to grasp that there never has been a single definable example where respect for individual property rights has been a "failure."
All of our current problems stem from the practices of the Republican/Democratic party he holds in such high esteem. And his deliberate lies can't change that.
The punch line was the "special obligations" thing. It cracked me up because what made America unique unto the entire world was that there was no such thing as a "special" or "unspoken" obligation of property ownership.
We were founded as a nation of law. If it ain't written down, it doesn't exist. I'd be curious to know where this "special obligation" is written and exactly what it might be.
Yep, this column makes it clear that the funny pages are more useful than the opinions of a writer who must certainly be using a pseudonym. I'd recognize the style and substance of Karl Marx anywhere.
I say: "Yeaaah! Mesa, the city that doesn't want to go down the economic tubes."
It was more than a little disturbing to have supporters call to ask if I was going to accept money stolen from the people of Arizona to fund my campaign.
The confusion stemmed from the recent article "50 parties in 50 hours for election cash" (Political Insider, Monday).
For the record, I am not even considering trying to con the public into believing that as a candidate I will lessen their burdens by taking their money.
Unfortunately for Arizona, it would seem that both of the other parties have abandoned all pretense to principles, and I remain (as far as I know) the sole "Cleaner-ist" candidate who is running on the issues, not stolen, so-called Clean Elections money.
Barry Hess, Phoenix
The writer is running for governor as a Libertarian.
