Constantin Querard Responds. I Correct My Earlier Post.

by David Safier

A few days ago, I wrote a post about Constantin Querard’s consultant position with three of our Southern Arizona candidates, Al Melvin and Marilyn Zerull in LD-26, and David Gowan in LD-30 (Phoenix Pol Runs Campaigns for Southern AZ Conservative Candidates). The assertion of the post was this: since Querard is running the campaigns of a number of Northern Arizona candidates along with the three in Southern Arizona, all of whom are on the far right wing of their party, the three local candidates are more beholden to the Phoenix-based, ultra-right wing power structure of the Republican party than to the needs of Southern Arizona.

Querard emailed me about his displeasure with my post. He pointed out a few items that bothered him, but stressed one aspect that was particularly troubling — my statement that he held the political positions I listed. He said, correctly, that I don’t know enough about his views to make that statement.

I agree. My statement about his views was based on assumptions, not on fact, and I think he’s right that I should set the record straight. Here’s what he wrote:

…you wrote, and stated as fact rather than opinion, that it was my “stated aim to elect legislators statewide who will conform to his extreme right wing agenda, which includes items such as: no abortions for any reason; less money for public education and more for private school vouchers and tax credits; a lack of concern for the quality of the environment; and a government as small and inattentive to people’s needs as possible.”

Those are not my positions. Allowing me to deny what you know to be not true isn’t much of an olive branch. If you wanted to write that it was your opinion that I favored candidates who believed in those things, that would be your right and I’d defend your right to post that. You would be very very wrong, but it would be your opinion and you’re entitled to it and you’re entitled to share it with folks. They can choose to believe you or not. But when you state an opinion or your political spin as fact, then you are materially misrepresenting things (political speak for “lying”). That’s not right nor is it defensible. I shouldn’t have to set the record straight on something that you know you wrote wrong. You should be willing to fix it. That would give you and your work greater credibility.

So, to correct the record: It’s my opinion that Querard favors candidates — and consults for candidates — who believe in the extreme right wing positions I stated. I went back to my earlier post and corrected that passage. (I crossed out the inaccurate phrase and added a new one. Part of my blogger’s code is that I don’t rewrite history by changing an post except for the sake of style, so the earlier phrase remains, crossed out to indicate I’ve discarded it.)

One part of Querard’s statement above doesn’t make sense without my explaining our email discussion. He wrote, “Allowing me to deny what you know to be not true isn’t much of an olive branch” and later refers to my asking him to set the record straight. In an earlier email, I said Querard could challenge my assertions in his own words and I would post what he wrote. I felt that would make more sense than my trying to dig up material where he’d taken positions on various issues, then summarizing it.

This morning, Querard sent me a statement of his positions. With his permission, I’m including them here, and I’m giving him the last word on this post.

I would love to read your comments about his statements, or mine. And I’m extending an open invitation to all LD-26 and LD-30 candidates: if you wish to state your positions on the four issues I’ve mentioned, or comment on anything Querard or I have written, I will post them on the blog (If I feel the need to make changes to what you’ve written for any reason, I will consult with you first.)

That being said, here is what Querard wrote:

To answer your question, I am pro-life but make the exception for the life of the mother. Al Melvin’s position is actually a bit to the left of me in that he also makes the exceptions for incest and rape. That is the position he has reiterated at several campaign events. Personally, Cage’s position on her Vote Smart survey of “Abortions should always be legal” is far more extreme to the left than Al’s position or even mine is to the right. Partial birth abortions are extreme and most pro-choicers oppose third-trimester procedures, but Cage apparently does not. So who is extreme on the abortion issue?

If you’re hard to the life or choice side, your answer is obvious. But if you’re a moderate voter in the middle, hers is further to the left than Al’s is to the right.

Obviously, I’ve never called for less money for public education, required a lack of concern for the quality of the environment, or crusaded for an inattentive government. I believe that choice in education will save the kids AND the public schools, although my principle concern is for the kids. Too many have already been robbed of a brighter future by failing schools. Folks who argue that choice will kill public schools are implying that, given a choice, parents won’t send their kids to public schools. That is a rather damning indictment of public schools by their own defenders. I love clean energy and live pretty green myself, but I’m opposed to mandating standards. And I want a government that works and does its job. The bigger it gets, the worse it runs, and no one really disagrees with that. Government does a lot of stuff it should not be doing and it does so badly and at great expense. That’s a shame because it consumes resources from those things that government should actually be doing, like providing for our safety/defense and providing a safety net for the truly needy.

I can’t say that every candidate I work with shares these positions exactly. That’s simply not the nature of the profession. The fact is that there are those of us who believe that government derives its power from its people, and the larger and more powerful the government, the more it will have taken from its people. Today, our government is too large and too powerful, and too much has been taken from the people. We need less government and we deserve better government. And we are entitled to a great deal more freedom than we currently enjoy. That’s the dime tour of my ideology…!