Another side of the CD5 field

SCOTTSDALE - The Lincoln Republican Women's Club wanted last night's CD5 candidates forum to be different from the norm.

People will be voting on personality," said Laura Hagan, Acting President of the organization. "We wanted to show who these candidates are."

So instead of the usual questions on Iraq, the economy, abortion, guns and the other policy matters that characterize most events of this kind, Kyle Moyer, political consultant and moderator for the evening, geared his questions toward unearthing what lies behind the candidates' motivations and mindsets.

Seated alphabetically left to right, candidates Mark Anderson, Laura Knaperek, Jim Ogsbury and David Schweikert were asked about their upbringing and the experiences that shaped them in their youth. The results were often quite interesting.

For instance, it turns out that Rep. Mark Anderson (R-Mesa) used to be a bit of a practical jokester - a trait that frequently landed him in trouble. When the candidates were asked to name the most memorable disciplinary action they received from their parents, Anderson recounted the time as a kid when he pretended to fall off a cliff to scare his mother.

Asked about his most romantic date, the prankster in Anderson reemerged. "I wasn't big into dating," he said, and possibly for reasons like this: when in high school, Anderson took a girl out into the woods, and, telling her he had to show her something, then drove off and left her for 20 minutes. Anderson's assessment of what he learned from these experiences: "Sometimes you make mistakes."

Jim Ogsbury's first date went more smoothly - at first. After going to the circus, he and his paramour ended up kissing in his car in a park that turned out to be closed. "It was really romantic until a spotlight hit me in the face - it was the Phoenix Police." Ogsbury said that it taught him to "repsect authority, lest you be terribly embarrassed."

Audience members also learned that Laura Knaperek has skills outside the public sphere, when asked about her first job. "I'm a very good waitress," she said, and recounted how working in the restaurants of her father and grandfather shaped her outlook on business. "I know that people put second mortgages on their homes, have to pay business taxes, are subject to regulation. My grandfather almost lost his license because he backed the wrong candidate in an election."

David Schweikert had two first jobs - shoveling out horse stalls and washing dishes in a restaurant. The dishwashing helped motivate him: "I saw the bus boys working there and knew I was going to go to college and I was going to go to graduate school," said Schweikert.

As for the horse stall mucking, the applications of that experience for a would-be member of Congress escaped no one.

The event took a more familiar tack as the evening progressed. The candidates were asked to name the value of the Republican Party with which they most identified, and to a person said it was some permutation of belief in limited government.

"It's the concept that human beings and Americans have the capability of advancing themselves as long as they have the virtues and morals to do so," said Anderson, who also said "government is not the solution" to problems like the credit crunch.

"The independent, entrepreneurial spirit of human beings and citizens" was Knaperek's response. "Government is a good thing if it's limited."

Ogsbury and Schweikert were more blunt.

"Ours is a constitutional government of very, very limited powers," said Ogsbury, who inveighed against a bill by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) that would remove soda and sports drinks from school vending machines. "I will be damned if I can find the power [in the Constitution] to regulate what local school districts put in their vending machines. We have become a nanny state, and it's incumbent upon the GOP to rein it in."

Schweikert was even bolder, claiming "I believe we are in a battle for the soul of our country, the soul of our party." He believes the Constitution was "divinely inspired," and that it provides a framework built on the understanding that "individuals if left alone will make the right moral, rational decisions."

Perhaps the most important and directly relevant question of the night came not from the moderator but from Joana Hagan during the audience Q&A portion. She asked how they planned to beat Harry Mitchell.

"Three words: MoveOn.org," said Laura Knaperek. "Harry Mitchell gets his money from MoveOn.org - did you know that?"

[Neither the FEC database nor OpenSecrets.org have a record of MoveOn PAC contributing to Harry Mitchell in either the 2006 or 2008 cycles. She may have been thinking of Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-8), who received $10,000 from MoveOn in 2006. So far MoveOn hasn't donated to any candidates this year.]

[Clarification: It has been brought to PolitickerAZ's attention that while there is no report of direct contributions to the Mitchell campaign from MoveOn, MoveOn.org claims that $146,645.72 was spent in 2006 in "independent expenditures + contributions" in connection with the Mitchell campaign.]

"The district has 16 percent more Republicans than Democrats," claimed Mark Anderson, who chalked up J.D. Hayworth's loss to the Iraq war and a spate of Republican scandals. "We need someone who can articulate the Republican vision."

"Focusing on the ideological chasm," said Jim Ogsbury. "He gets a pass in the media because he's a grandfather and a civics teacher. He's also a big labor Democrat, a big spending Democrat, a big government liberal."

Schweikert says the most important thing is the narrative. "You've got to tell a story," he said. "You don't have to be rude. Retire him with honor. Say: 'A vote for him is a vote for the Nancy Pelosi Congress. A vote for me is a vote for fiscal responsibility.'"