SCOTTSDALE - Last night, the LD8 Republicans hosted at their monthly meeting a forum for the GOP CD5 primary field. It was vastly different in tone from their previous meeting, courtesy the Lincoln Republican Women Club, and included facing problems the Republicans are struggling with. 

The four Republican contenders who appeared last night fielded questions from moderator and LD17 House candidate Mark Thompson, though the underlying understanding developed that the Republicans' current minority status in Congress was the Republicans' own fault.

In what became the leitmotif of the evening, candidates Mark Anderson, Laura Knaperek, Jim Ogsbury and David Schweikert pulled no punches in ascribing blame for Republican Party's fortunes on congressional Republicans.

Jim Ogsbury, who served as Staff Director on the House Appropriations Subcommittee  recalled having a "front row seat" to the 1994 Republican Revolution, and how that revolution eventually failed.

"[Republicans] have become the standard-bearers of big government" was his ultimate assessment of his party's representatives in this Congress.

However, Ogsbury also added that he has "never been more optimistic about our prospects," citing the "colossal failure of the Nancy Pelosi Congress" as a reason for hope.

In their closing statements as well, the candidates, particularly former Maricopa Treasurer David Schweikert, sounded a note of reinvigorating Republicans by returning to conservative fundamentals.

"Lots of voters are really mad at Republicans," said Schweikert. "There are hard realities we have to face."

One in particular is that the national party won't be offering a lot of assistance to the eventual nominee.

"The NRCC isn't coming in with a white horse," he said. "They're broke."

Therefore, he said, CD5 Republicans will need to come together to defeat Mitchell.

"We have to unify and march up the hill together."

Despite their dim view of the way Congress's GOP contingent has handled their responsibilities - or because of it- the candidates to a person pledged to close ranks once the primary battle is over.

"Usuall when there's an opportunity like this," said Rep. Mark Anderson (R-Mesa), "we begin attacking each other with such intensity that we lose" in the general. "That's how we got [Gov.] Janet Napolitano and [fmr. U.S. Sen.] Dennis DeConcini."

He spoke for his competition when he said "Our strategy is: whoever wins, we will support."

On the issues, differences emerged, though frequently the candidates were in total concert on the broad strokes.

Education was one area where former State. Rep. Laura Knaperek diverged from David Schweikert and Jim Ogsbury.

While agreeing with her opponents that setting education policy "is not really the role of Congress," she did not repudiate the public education system as a whole.

"I want good, strong teachers," she said.

Schweikert and Ogsbury had a different take.

"I believe in a school voucher system," he said, and Ogsbury seconded.

"I'm a big believer in school choice," said Ogsbury, who claimed schools should be in competition and subject to the forces of the market.

There was little differentiation on border security, with all candidates wholeheartedly supporting a fence except Anderson, who called it "more of a political statement" and prescribed increased manpower as the solution to the influx of illegal immigrants, which his opponents supported as well. Ogsbury called for aerial detection to take a more pronounced role, while Knaperek spoke out on one of the overlooked consequences of illegal immigration.

"There are diseases coming across the border - diseases we've never had in a long time," she said.

Similarly, on federal earmarks, the candidates stood in agreement, discussing the practice in shades of revulsion and indignation. The field was also united in opposition to Congress's approach to the subprime mortgage crisis, with all candidates agreed that the federal government shouldn't be bailing out irresponsible lenders and housing market speculators.

The only other subject on which there was significant disagreement was that of the government's role in renewable energy development.

Mark Anderson said that the development of renewals was important to offset the need to import oil from the Middle East, but said that there was only a role for the funding of "research and development," not industry subsidization.

Anderson set the tone for the others when he said, "Anytime the government gets involved in an industry, it finds a way to pick winners and losers."

Laura Knaperek advocated nuclear power, saying "there's no need to subsidize it - it's already available." However, she didn't say whether she was in favor of building new plants, which might require government funds.

Jim Ogsbury was very direct in his take on government subsidies aimed at renewable energy: "It's a scam.

"The government isn't going to determine the viability of technologies - the market will."

David Schweikert spoke out against ethanol, which he said was "killing people all over the world" due to its effect on food prices and availability, but did say there was a role for the government in developing renewable technologies, suggesting a "government-private partnership" a la the X-Prize, which offered a $10 million award for building a vehicle that could send a person into orbit.

It should be noted that only four of the six candidates in the race spoke last night. Susan Bitter Smith, a telecommunications lobbyist who officially announces her candidacy tonight, was present but barred from participating, as she is not yet officially in the race.

Invited but not present was Lee Adam Gentry. All that is known about him is that he has filed his papers with the FEC - he has not been a presence in the race so far.

As Royce Flora, Chairman of the LD8 Republicans, said: "No one can seem to find him."