A.J. LaFaro: Rogue GOP PCs got what they had coming

Cross-party, renegade endorsements are in conflict with specific duties of precinct committeemen

 A. J. LaFaro, chairman of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, has written a commentary explaining that Republicans elected as precinct committeemen (PC) who endorse Democrats proved that their egregious actions have consequences. His “AZ I See It” column, printed in the Arizona Republic and can be read here.

He explains the duties of a PC, including the state laws and party bylaws at the state, county and legislative district level under which elected or appointed committeemen function.

For the uninitiated, LaFaro provides an education into the roles and responsibilities of this important political position —- one that exists in both Republican and Democrat parties.  

A. J. LaFaro’s cogent response to the noise that has stifled rational thought on this key issue is definitely worth your time. He has served the Maricopa County Republican Party with distinction. 


25 Responses to A.J. LaFaro: Rogue GOP PCs got what they had coming

  1. Geoffrey Parker says:

    Not being “rogue” also includes not censoring elected Republicans. He has a lot to account for.


    • azgary says:

      if pc’s can be sanctioned for supporting democrats, politicians should also be sanctioned for behaving as democrats.
      if there is no accountability, it is all money rules, but you establishment folks are all for that. no difference, just the highest bidder and a strengthening of the oligarchy we live under.

  2. GOP PC says:

    Excellent article, AJ!
    I will never understand why Republicans who are involved in the GOP to the point that they actually run for a precinct committeeman position would support Democrats. The two parties platforms are diametrically opposed to one another. Their goals are vastly different and the issues that separate them are worlds apart. These traitors disgust me. If they are unhappy with the party, they are certainly free register with and join the Democrats. Working within the party to destroy it is treachery.

    • azgary says:

      rules are rules, and while I understand your unhappiness with pc’s who support leftist democrats over republicans, its wrong to condemn all pc’s who will not toe the line and support candidates just because they are republican in name only.

      people like john McCain and Robert graham (and far too many other so called “republicans”) who choose chambers of commerce and foreigners over American citizens and those “lesser of two evils” sheeple insisting we support politicians just because they have (R) by there name on a ballot even as they do as much harm as the democrats are the ones committing treachery and destroying us from within.

      I proudly say that if McCain or any other anti-American chamber of commerce shill is nominated by republicans I will be voting for their democrat challenger.

      if we want to take the party back, it cannot be done by supporting those politicians actively destroying us from within. they are the ones who MUST be defeated, otherwise they, or the leadership will NEVER place voters over the money.

      never will I vote for any amnesty supporter, defined as anything that allows illegals to remain in the country and does not stop more from entering and staying.

    • ZOO says:

      “….The two parties platforms are diametrically opposed to one another. Their goals are vastly different and the issues that separate them are worlds apart…”

      Unfortunately on the issue of nation-killing illegal immigration (invasion), this is a fallacy……and it has been ever since January 20, 2001. What’s more, everybody now knows it or they’re comatose.

  3. azgary says:

    just a little bit curious, what exactly would the rules be regarding censured republican candidates, must pc’s support them or are they free to support a challenger due to the disgusting, anti-American, anti-party acts these duplicitous scumsucking traitors have performed to stab us all in the back?

    • azgary says:

      as an add on to my previous question regarding censured republicans and pc support, in my humble opinion, pc’s who in anyway support a censured republican should face the same discipline those who support democrats do.


      • PV PC says:

        Not sure I get what you mean by “support.“ Is your concept of “support” financial and vocal in reference to those running for more public offices, or the wayward PCs who don’t actually wage campaigns? Who one votes for is a private matter. PUBLICLY supporting Democrats is what’s at issue here. Rob Haney, a respected conservative was twice elected as Maricopa County Republican chairman and also served as a district chairman. He never made any bones about his distrust/dislike of John McCain. By the same token, he didn’t publicly endorse McCain’s Democrat opponent. BIG difference.

      • azgary says:

        for the sake of simplicity, lets just say the same rules should apply to supporting censured republicans as apply to supporting democrats by pc’s.
        censured republicans should also not be eligible to attend ANY functions as candidates at any forum by the censuring bodies, nor should they be endorsed/supported or attended to in any public or official function by members of the censuring body such as Robert grahams full public support and dragging McCain around to places he was not wanted and was sanctioned by.
        something for the rules committees to consider. sanctioned republicans should be unwelcomed by those bodies who censured them, and members of those bodies should in turn be censured/sanctioned in the same way that the same level of support would earn them in doing the same activities for a democrat.

  4. azgary says:

    off topic, but can az republicans be counted on to do the same, supporting Boehner is supporting the democrat chamber of commerce agenda, and remember when we vote for the people who continue to support Boehner and democrat policies, we are doing the EXACT same thing:

    “Rep. Thomas Massie: Not Voting For Boehner On Tuesday”
    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) issued a statement on Saturday detailing why he’s going to vote against House Speaker John Boehner’s re-election on Tuesday.

    Massie, who’s entering his second term as a member from Kentucky, now becomes the second Republican House member announcing the coming rebellion against Boehner.

    Massie joins Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) in the fight for fresh leadership, and in his statement he detailed how Boehner and his leadership actually have misled members of the House GOP conference.

    “For years I watched Washington from afar and suspected that something was broken. Why is it that so many people approve of their congressman, yet they consistently disapprove of Congress? During my first two years as a congressman I discovered a significant source of the dysfunction,” Massie said, before detailing several bad things that he “watched the House Leadership” do.

    • azgary says:

      “Rep. Ted Yoho Joins Movement Against Boehner, Offers Himself As Potential Alternative”
      “Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) says he will vote against House Speaker John Boehner’s re-election. Further, Yoho is the first GOP member of the House of Representatives to announce he is willing to stand up as an alternative candidate to Boehner if no other alternatives emerge. Yoho joins Reps. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) in announcing he will not be voting for Boehner on Tuesday.”
      “Yoho continued:
      In order to do this, strong leadership is required. The American people have spoken loud and clear by their choice to elect conservative Representatives to serve them in Washington. It’s our turn now, as Members of the People’s House, to echo their demands by electing a new Speaker. The American people have allowed us to choose who is best suited to lead the House by electing a deep bench of diverse and qualified members. Our Republic is built on choice, and if needed, I would stand up to give our members that option.”

      what will the az 5 do?

      if they support Boehner, are they supporting us?

      will you continue voting for them if they once again represent moneyed interest over we the people?

      • Orion says:

        Thanks for this information, gary. I see I’ve missed a lo with family in from out of town.

        To answer your question re: the AZ 5: First and foremost, I’d be surprised if ANY of them buck Boehner and his establishment cronies. And if they don’t I will let my likely lone voice be heard. Will it do any good calling and letting some kid staffer who thinks he or she is working for a God, know that I’m ticked? No! Of course not. I will do it anyway and invite you all to join me. I withheld my vote from my “Republican” US Representative this past election, for not representing me. He’s in a “safe” seat and didn’t need us. I stood in opposition as a protest vote. My wife joined me. He’s caved on amnesty.

      • azgary says:

        “FreedomWorks Directing Calls To Congress Urging Boehner Ouster”
        The grassroots conservative group FreedomWorks is directing calls to Congress among its 6.7 million supporters nationwide, urging Republicans to vote out House Speaker John Boehner and replace him with a viable alternative. FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe says:

        With a growing Republican majority in the House and a historically high number of liberty-voting fiscal conservatives within it, there is an urgent need replace Speaker Boehner with fresh, bold leadership that better represents the views of the whole caucus. Speaker Boehner has kicked fiscal conservatives off committee positions for voting against his wishes, caved on numerous massive spending bills at the eleventh hour, and abused the legislative process to stomp out opposition by holding surprise votes and giving members little time to actually read the bills before they vote. An effective Speaker would be someone who leads through action, consistently doing what Republicans promised the American people they would do. We need someone willing to shake up the status quo.

        Kibbe added that his organization aims to pressure Republicans. “FreedomWorks plans to mobilize its community of over 6.7 million grassroots activists to contact their representatives in the House using phone calls, email messages, and social media in the days leading up to the Tuesday vote.”

        call them, call them all even if they are not your representative, and if they do not perform to the demands of We The People, do not reelect them. if they know our votes can be counted even though they work for the oligarchs and not us, why would they ever do what we want?

    • azgary says:

      “Texas Republican announces challenge to Boehner for Speaker in new Congress”
      “Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) said Sunday that he will challenge John Boehner (R-Ohio) as Speaker in the new Congress.
      I’m putting my name out there today to be another candidate for Speaker,” Gohmert said on “Fox and Friends.”
      Gohmert said that after “years of broken promises, it’s time for a change.”
      “Eventually, the goal is second, third, fourth round, we have enough people that say ‘you know what, it really is time for a change,’ ” Gohmert said Sunday. “’You deceived us when you went to Obama and Pelosi to get your votes for the cromnibus. You said you’d fight amnesty tooth an nail. You didn’t, you funded it.’ ”
      Gohmert said, if elected, he would ”fight amnesty tooth and nail. We’ll use the powers of the purse. We’ll have better oversight. We’ll fight to defund ObamaCare.”
      “In 2010, Boehner and other leaders said if you put us in the majority, we will have time to read the bills,” Gohmert said. “That hasn’t happened. We saw that with the cromnibus, again.”

  5. Saguaro Sam says:

    Speaking of someone who has had a political party identity problem in her past, Gabby Giffords and Mr. Gabby Giffords are seeking “cash and guidance” due to their resounding loss regarding their gun control efforts.

    Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS)–the gun control group founded by Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly–is seeking advice and trying to raise money “in the wake of repeated legislative and election defeats,” according to The Washington Times.

    The Times reports that ARS sent a fundraising email to supporters that “linked to a survey” with questions revolving around “how to make the group more effective.” It said, “We’re asking our supporters to tell us what they think Americans for Responsible Solutions should do next year. Our team has some great ideas, but we want to hear from you.” . . . .(from breitbart.com)

  6. Dennis O'Brien says:

    I found this list of RINOs right here on SRAZ with a simple Google search. It goes back to the infamous ‘Republicans for Janet’ (Napolitano) website in 2006. Grant Woods is on this list of turncoats. (Click on the appropriately red page to enlarge it):

    The Google search also turned up this item on Grant Woods endorsing far left liberal, union supporting Democrat Felecia Rotellini during the same time he served as chairman of Jan Brewer’s campaign for governor!
    Here is her initial list of turncoats:

    If any of these so called “Prominent Republicans” ever run for public office, we need to be sure to prominently kick their sorry asses to the curb.

  7. LEO IN TSN says:

    You have to look beyond the floor votes of the AZ5 on any issue, and that includes the vote on “Tears” McBoehner. Most votes are tallied before the actual floor vote, and certain reps are given passes to “vote no – pray yes” to fool the little folk back home. More significant is any public statements made by the reps before their votes. Odds are no words will come from AZ5 that aren’t ventriloquized by King RINO McBoehner.

    Since McBoehner was out here in HQ, AZ stumping for the AZ4 and raising McEstablishment campaign dollars for the boyish Mzzzz McMcMcSally in her primary against a conservative loyal military-veteran AZ patriot, we can guess now which way the winds of DC will blow them all, vote or no vote.

    AZ is in real trouble, with the slate of McEstablishment traitorous “R’s” representing US in DC and in Phx (gov & AG). For example, McDucey (an “R” by the way) got elected by conservative, freedom-loving AZonans, and didn’t even wait until the swearing in to appoint a pro-Common Core Education Subcommittee – one of whom publicly supported a dimocrat in the general election – and thus betraying those who elected him. That’s an AZ “R” for you. Feel that sword in your back? I haven’t heard Chair McGraham’s public statement on that yet. Does loyalty only apply to PC’s? Is it only PC’s who face consequences from the McGOP for their actions?

    Yes, it’s true, it will be the traitorous “R’s” who kill US, in league with the dimocrats. Loyalty in the McEstablishment McGOP is a one-way street. Don’t be fooled by an “R” alone, and don’t support traitors. Say, isn’t McGraham up for re-election this month? –I think he is.

    God bless America.

    • State Delegate says:

      LEO IN TSN,
      You’re right on all counts. And, yes, Robert McGraham is running — hard — to lead us further down the McCain path. He’s collecting endorsements from every conceivable corner and using the GOP email data base to get his message out.

    • azgary says:

      it would only take 29 congressmen to stop the election of Boehner as speaker:
      “Conservatives have grown used to being a minority in Washington, irrespective of which party controls the White House and Congress. But on Tuesday, January 6, a group of just 29 conservatives will have perhaps the only opportunity to change the course of history and drive the direction of Washington. It only takes 29 House members to depose current Speaker John Boehner. With this leverage, conservatives could negotiate significant reforms from a successor who emerges on a second or third ballot, thereby restoring the mandate given to them by the electorate on November 4. Tuesday will be a profound time for choosing, and given the way Obama has ostensibly overturned the results of the midterm elections – the Speaker’s election could prove more impactful than the votes cast at the ballot box.

      • Doc says:

        So, according to the BLAZE just now, Gosar says he will vote against th’ coward boehner for liar…oops! I meant Speaker…yeah…Speaker of the House. Quote;

        “Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) — Gosar voted for Boehner last time around, but won’t this time.

        “I cannot stand beside the same leadership that has offered up bills too large to read, used parliamentary tricks to bring bills to the floor and has refused to take swift action against the president and his Administration’s unconstitutional actions,” he said.”

        Now, I’m not gonna’ go dancin’ in th’ streets over this, but I have called the congressman’s office numerous times & railed about his vote for boehner 2 years ago. Maybe he listened? It’ll be interesting to see what th’ other 4 ?reps? will do…

  8. Daniel Stefanski says:

    When Mr. LaFaro ran for election two years ago, he ran on a number of promises. If he has served the MCRC with distinction, I would ask if he has fulfilled these promises over the last two years:

    1. Conduct Precinct Committeemen Opinion Surveys Twice A Year
    2. Visit Legislative Districts Quarterly
    3. Use Technology More Effer:tively
    4. Conduct Effective Precinct Committeemen And Legislative District Training
    5. Strengthen Relations With State Legislature And Elected Officials, While Maintaining Our
    Grassroots Independence
    6. Strengthen Relations With Republican Clubs, TEA Parties, Minority Groups And News Media
    7. Implement Chairman’s Semi-Monthly “My Turn” To The News Media, With Press Conferences
    When Needed
    8. Write Letters-To-The-Editor When Needed, Using Team Of Precinct Committeemen
    9. Commit To Raise $IOO,OOO Or More By The Chairman
    10. Interview And Recruit Strong Conservative Candidates For All Offices
    11. Commit Chairman And Executive Officers To Stay Neutral In Primaries
    12. Implement An MCRC “Best Practices” Standard GOTV For AII Legislative Districts

  9. Rob Haney says:

    Indeed, AJ has served with distinction Mr. Stefanski. I could not be more pleased in the manner in which AJ stood up for the Republican Platform, US Constitution and the Republican precinct committeemen who fulfilled their obligations to the Party.

    No one holds McCain in more disdain than I for his contemptuous actions and liberal Democrat supporting politics, but I would never dream of publicly supporting a Democrat running against him.
    That action would lower me to his level of the ethically challenged.

    The Party has a right to self preservation against attacks from within as were manifested by those Republican PCs who publicly endorsed Democrats.

    The answer is simple. If those contemplating running for Republican PC could ever envision themselves voting for a Democrat, then they should not run to be a Republican PC or they should keep their endorsements to themselves. AJ was quite correct in calling these Manchurian candidates to task for their betrayal of their office and the Republican Party.

    Incidentally, this is not a new phenomena. When I was first elected as a district chairman, I had 10 PCs in my district publicly endorse Napolitano for governor. They laughed in ridicule when I asked them to resign at the district meeting. They were all directly connected to McCain and he later had three of them appointed as presidential electors for his failed presidential election. Yes, that was the election in which he told us we had nothing to fear from an Obama administration.

    A number of these PCs are repeat offenders in endorsing Democrats and were on this latest list.

    • Daniel Stefanski says:

      Mr. Haney, I’ve had great respect for you and for the way you have fought for the conservative causes that so many of us believe in. You are correct that Republican pc’s should not be endorsing Democrats – I would go as far as to say that Republicans (whether a precinct committeeman or not) should not be publicly endorsing candidates from any other party but from that which they are registered.

      That being said, you and I were both in that EGC meeting where the rogue pc’s were censured, and we heard much feedback from the leaders in that room about 1. Their opposition to backing away from the discipline proposed at the last meeting, and 2. (For the new chairs) they did not know all the details about the cases involved. Maybe removing the rogue pc’s from their positions was pushing the legal bounds (as Mr Lafaro found out), but his tactics and actions were more in line with someone who had been defeated and looking for a way to save face. If he believed so strongly in removing the pc’s from their positions, he should have carried out his beliefs to their conclusion – even though he was threatened with a lawsuit. If all personal beliefs and convictions could be thrown aside at the threats of lawsuits, we as a party would stand for nothing. As chairman of the MCRC, Mr Lafaro should have known that his actions would have incited such claims of retaliation and thought through the consequences of proceeding. Unfortunately, it does not look like he did think through his actions because he was not prepared to face the threats to his actions, and he shamed the MCRC in the process.

      I don’t believe you would have done this, Mr Haney. I believe that your record has shown that when you stood for something, you followed through to its conclusion because you knew it was right to do.

      Also, I’m still waiting to hear back from someone about Mr. LaFaro’s campaign promises and whether or not they were carried out over the last two years.

  10. Rob Haney says:

    In fact, I did enforce the MCRC bylaw and removed the voting privileges of Republican PCs who endorsed Democrats while I was Chairman. The difference being that I was not threatened with a lawsuit or I would have had to reverse course as AJ was required to do. The MCRC does not have the funds necessary to defend the action nor would it receive a fair hearing in the AZ judicial system.

    It is apparent to me that Party officials have no ability to act in defense of the Party when threatened with a lawsuit. I have been sued by Mr. Langhofer previously for calling for a redo of a district election at the behest of fifteen Party officials who spent three days investigating the election and unanimously determined that a new election was warranted. I had no choice but to reverse the decision of the Party officials.

    I am also being sued by the ACLU for writing to the AZ legislature in support of laws to stop the illegal alien invasion. Fortunately for me, Judicial Watch is defending me pro bono.

    The point being that AJ had no choice in making his decision and took the best action possible through a motion of censure.

  11. Daniel Stefanski says:

    Mr. Haney, AJ did have a choice. He could have thought through the ramifications of his decision before he made it in the first place. If he had done so, he would have surely thought about the possibility of a lawsuit threat, and then he could have saved the MCRC from appearing to be weak in the face of adversity.

    The lack of money that the MCRC has raised (in order, in part, to fight off lawsuits) is a reflection on AJ’s leadership of the party. He promised to raise $100,000 in his capacity of chairman. Did he? And if not, why?