I was afraid this posting would be late; spring has sprung in Utah and, with it, my semi-annual allergy attack came on last Thursday. Happily, we're not late, though I'm still feeling the effects. So, in spite of of the congestion and the medications – in the immortal words of Jackie Gleason – "And away we go!"
"Let each citizen remember, at the moment he is offering his vote, that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or, at least, that he ought not so to do – but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men." (Samuel Adams)
The 2012 election season hasn't started yet, at least, not seriously. The rhetoric has begun, even if few candidates have declared. So, before personalities get in the way (don't kid yourself, they will!) I thought I'd give you my take on elections — specifically, re-elections.
What you like vs. what you don't like:
What you like vs. what you don't like:
"Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric. Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside." (Sen. Zell Miller).
When choosing to re-elect or replace an incumbent, I suggest the following process:
Step One: Get the facts. There are many places to research a senator's or representative's votes.
Project VoteSmart is a respected record that's been around a long time.
MegaVote is a project of Congress.org.
Voter Effect also allows you to cast virtual votes.
The Washington Post has a database.
The US government even has one.
Step Two: Split the vote. Divide the responses into those with which you agree and those with which you disagree.
Step Three: Ignore the votes you like. Not kidding, here. You like these, you don't have a problem with these, you hope your members of congress would always vote like this. 'Nuf said.
Step Four: Consider long and hard the votes with which you disagree. You see, "there's the rub," as Shakespeare said. Every person in the world has positives and negatives, you like your friends in spite of the negatives, because they are outweighed by the positives. My question regarding politicians: Are you willing to put up with the negatives to get the positives? This isn't a case of my buddy explains everything in excruciating detail. This isn't a case of my husband snores. This isn't a case of my wife can't cook. This isn't a case of any of those old, tired comedy clichés. This is the national security of, the economic strength of, the protection of core freedoms and rights in the United States of America.
I remember a precinct caucus not long ago; three candidates stood for delegate to the state convention, where congressional candidates were to be chosen. When asked if they supported Candidate X, one delegate-nominee said, "I'll poll the precinct and vote for their choice." The second said, "Well, I think he's done a fairly good job, I think he deserves another chance." The third said, "If you want to give him another term, vote for someone else." Number three was the precinct's choice, and became part of the removal of Candidate X from the race.
This is serious business, and I believe in being harsh in political judgments. That's really easy for me, as I have a natural cynicism. I consider it my greatest political advantage. I would like to see that same cynicism in more voters. In law, we say, "Innocent until proven guilty." In politics, we should be assuming, "Unworthy of re-election until proven worthy."
The members of Congress have huge responsibilities among which are a multi-trillion-dollar federal budget, our relationship with other countries, our judges and courts, and the lives of 2,900,000 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. Civil servants are paid by the hard-earned tax dollars of every American; they must be held to the highest standards; "good enough" is not "good enough." If the United States is the greatest nation in the world, we, as Americans, deserve the best of the best as our president, senators, representatives, governors, state legislators, county and municipal officers.
Trust and Reliability:
A Facebook friend recently wrote: "It might bring us a nice, warm fuzzy feeling to focus on the good votes [Candidate Y] is giving now, but the motivation is extremely important. If [Y] is sincere, great, but if [Y] is not, [Y's] votes will change as soon as elections are over and [the] seat is safe. . . .That is why we also have to focus on the bad. [Y's] overall record is more telling than [the] record near election years."
I agree, for the most part, but I think my friend missed something. Candidate Y's voting record in election years is very telling. If there's consistency across the years, then we can assume Y is an honest politician (that means, one who stays bought). If Y's vote moves toward the majority of his constituency at election time, and away between elections, it means Y is out of step with constituents and knows it. It also means Y doesn't care and thinks his constituents are stupid enough not to notice that pretense of being on their side. Repentance is still part of the gospel, people do change, but when a member of Congress swings back and forth over several elections, don't believe those who say, "This person has seen the light; s/he is finally representing us correctly."
Of course, those with shorter service have shorter records, less data to analyze. Do you err on the side of the incumbent or the replacement? That is a choice each voter must make on each individual candidate.
Seniority and Power:
Step One: Get the facts. There are many places to research a senator's or representative's votes.
Project VoteSmart is a respected record that's been around a long time.
MegaVote is a project of Congress.org.
Voter Effect also allows you to cast virtual votes.
The Washington Post has a database.
The US government even has one.
Step Two: Split the vote. Divide the responses into those with which you agree and those with which you disagree.
Step Three: Ignore the votes you like. Not kidding, here. You like these, you don't have a problem with these, you hope your members of congress would always vote like this. 'Nuf said.
Step Four: Consider long and hard the votes with which you disagree. You see, "there's the rub," as Shakespeare said. Every person in the world has positives and negatives, you like your friends in spite of the negatives, because they are outweighed by the positives. My question regarding politicians: Are you willing to put up with the negatives to get the positives? This isn't a case of my buddy explains everything in excruciating detail. This isn't a case of my husband snores. This isn't a case of my wife can't cook. This isn't a case of any of those old, tired comedy clichés. This is the national security of, the economic strength of, the protection of core freedoms and rights in the United States of America.
I remember a precinct caucus not long ago; three candidates stood for delegate to the state convention, where congressional candidates were to be chosen. When asked if they supported Candidate X, one delegate-nominee said, "I'll poll the precinct and vote for their choice." The second said, "Well, I think he's done a fairly good job, I think he deserves another chance." The third said, "If you want to give him another term, vote for someone else." Number three was the precinct's choice, and became part of the removal of Candidate X from the race.
This is serious business, and I believe in being harsh in political judgments. That's really easy for me, as I have a natural cynicism. I consider it my greatest political advantage. I would like to see that same cynicism in more voters. In law, we say, "Innocent until proven guilty." In politics, we should be assuming, "Unworthy of re-election until proven worthy."
The members of Congress have huge responsibilities among which are a multi-trillion-dollar federal budget, our relationship with other countries, our judges and courts, and the lives of 2,900,000 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. Civil servants are paid by the hard-earned tax dollars of every American; they must be held to the highest standards; "good enough" is not "good enough." If the United States is the greatest nation in the world, we, as Americans, deserve the best of the best as our president, senators, representatives, governors, state legislators, county and municipal officers.
Trust and Reliability:
A Facebook friend recently wrote: "It might bring us a nice, warm fuzzy feeling to focus on the good votes [Candidate Y] is giving now, but the motivation is extremely important. If [Y] is sincere, great, but if [Y] is not, [Y's] votes will change as soon as elections are over and [the] seat is safe. . . .That is why we also have to focus on the bad. [Y's] overall record is more telling than [the] record near election years."
I agree, for the most part, but I think my friend missed something. Candidate Y's voting record in election years is very telling. If there's consistency across the years, then we can assume Y is an honest politician (that means, one who stays bought). If Y's vote moves toward the majority of his constituency at election time, and away between elections, it means Y is out of step with constituents and knows it. It also means Y doesn't care and thinks his constituents are stupid enough not to notice that pretense of being on their side. Repentance is still part of the gospel, people do change, but when a member of Congress swings back and forth over several elections, don't believe those who say, "This person has seen the light; s/he is finally representing us correctly."
Of course, those with shorter service have shorter records, less data to analyze. Do you err on the side of the incumbent or the replacement? That is a choice each voter must make on each individual candidate.
Seniority and Power:
"A representative owes the people not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion." (Edmund Burke, MP)
I believe that members of Congress should vote against the opinion of their constituents, if the facts warrant it. But that member is then obligated to justify that vote to their constituents. Those constituents are then free to elect someone else if they disagree with that justification.
The key to politics is trust, and the key to trust is reliability. The primary argument given to Utah to keep Sen. Bob Bennett in the Senate was his power, meaning his seniority. In fact, one delegate to the convention (wherein Bennett was replaced) actually told me, "You'd have to be an idiot to remove him now. We're going to get the Senate back and then, we [Utah] will have real power."
Okay, first, I don't like being called an idiot, even by implication. Second, I agree that a fourth-term US senator is not an insignificant commodity. However, third, and most important, people kept asking if he exercised his power to benefit Utah. The answer was no. That's why Bob Bennett was retired. (Fourth, we didn't get the Senate back, so Utah would've been stuck with a guy they didn't like because of a false promise – that's politics.)
This isn't a question of earmarks, pork-barrel politics, or whatever you want to call the custom of politicians getting federal money for local projects. According to a Rasmussen Reports poll of 19 November 2010: 58% of likely voters say they’d rather vote for a candidate who works to cut federal spending. 54% think members of Congress who seeks federal money is more interested in re-election than in what’s best for his constituents. 67% of mainstream America prefers a candidate who cuts spending.
This is about doing what's right for America. Do you exercise power to stop wasteful spending? Do you exercise power to stop activist judges? Do you exercise power to stop unconstitutional government programs? In this case, I would definitely err on the side of the replacement. I'd rather have a reliable junior than an unreliable senior. I'd rather take a chance on an untested junior than an unreliable senior. Remember the counsel to ignore a candidate's positives? Here's the rub again: If true conservatives elect true conservatives, they will get the positives without the negatives!
No one is unbeatable:
The Federal Election Commission reports that Sen. Bob Bennett spent $3,192,876. His legitimate challengers spent a combined $2,667,163 (Tim Bridgewater – $739,495; Cherilyn Eagar – $151,675 and Mike Lee – $1,775,993). Incumbency, seniority and money lost.
Did you know that Tom Daschle, in 2004, was defeated in his re-election bid, despite the fact that he was senate majority leader at the time?
George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, William Howard Taft, Grover Cleveland, Chester A. Arthur, Andrew Johnson, Millard Fillmore, John Tyler, Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams and John Adams were defeated as sitting or former US presidents.
Mike Lee, Utah's newest contribution to the Beltway swamp, had no political record – he'd never held political office, he'd never held party office, he'd never been an advocate for anything, except his law clients (some of whom aren't all that popular in Utah). He won because he was the best campaigner.
Final thoughts:
The key to politics is trust, and the key to trust is reliability. The primary argument given to Utah to keep Sen. Bob Bennett in the Senate was his power, meaning his seniority. In fact, one delegate to the convention (wherein Bennett was replaced) actually told me, "You'd have to be an idiot to remove him now. We're going to get the Senate back and then, we [Utah] will have real power."
Okay, first, I don't like being called an idiot, even by implication. Second, I agree that a fourth-term US senator is not an insignificant commodity. However, third, and most important, people kept asking if he exercised his power to benefit Utah. The answer was no. That's why Bob Bennett was retired. (Fourth, we didn't get the Senate back, so Utah would've been stuck with a guy they didn't like because of a false promise – that's politics.)
This isn't a question of earmarks, pork-barrel politics, or whatever you want to call the custom of politicians getting federal money for local projects. According to a Rasmussen Reports poll of 19 November 2010: 58% of likely voters say they’d rather vote for a candidate who works to cut federal spending. 54% think members of Congress who seeks federal money is more interested in re-election than in what’s best for his constituents. 67% of mainstream America prefers a candidate who cuts spending.
This is about doing what's right for America. Do you exercise power to stop wasteful spending? Do you exercise power to stop activist judges? Do you exercise power to stop unconstitutional government programs? In this case, I would definitely err on the side of the replacement. I'd rather have a reliable junior than an unreliable senior. I'd rather take a chance on an untested junior than an unreliable senior. Remember the counsel to ignore a candidate's positives? Here's the rub again: If true conservatives elect true conservatives, they will get the positives without the negatives!
No one is unbeatable:
The Federal Election Commission reports that Sen. Bob Bennett spent $3,192,876. His legitimate challengers spent a combined $2,667,163 (Tim Bridgewater – $739,495; Cherilyn Eagar – $151,675 and Mike Lee – $1,775,993). Incumbency, seniority and money lost.
Did you know that Tom Daschle, in 2004, was defeated in his re-election bid, despite the fact that he was senate majority leader at the time?
George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, William Howard Taft, Grover Cleveland, Chester A. Arthur, Andrew Johnson, Millard Fillmore, John Tyler, Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams and John Adams were defeated as sitting or former US presidents.
Mike Lee, Utah's newest contribution to the Beltway swamp, had no political record – he'd never held political office, he'd never held party office, he'd never been an advocate for anything, except his law clients (some of whom aren't all that popular in Utah). He won because he was the best campaigner.
Final thoughts:
"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates or measures you want to vote for, but there are certain to be ones that you want to vote against. By this rule, you will rarely go wrong." (Robert Anson Heinlein, science fiction writer)
"When I was growing up on a farm, my father taught me how bulls serve cows, how boars serve sows, and how rams serve ewes. I tell you this so that you will understand what a politician means when he says he wants to serve the people." ("Paul Harvey, Good day!")
Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.
No comments:
Post a Comment