Statesman or Politician?

As you could probably tell from my last blog I was a delegate for my state's convention. The convention was yesterday... an all day affair. The main objective for my part of the convention was to vote for a congressman. There were 5 candidates; 4 challengers and an incumbent. Each candidate was given 7 minutes to speak to the delegates. I had come to the convention leaning in a particular direction, however, I thought that the speeches might still sway one way or another. I was right.

The first speaker was in his own world. His speech made little sense, but we kindly clapped out of respect. The second, Joe Fergusson, made a great deal of sense, but tended to be over-zealous about a single issue (the North American Union). Though the issue deserves a great deal of attention there are many more things that needed addressing. He was articulate but didn't give himself much of a chance for serious consideration. The third speaker caught my attention. David Leavitt spoke about the need for a true statesman in Washington, not a politician. He had enough fire in his bones that I got stirred. This one deserved some serious consideration. Next, a very energetic Jason Chaffetz took the stand. He had some strong points, the strongest being that he was a fiscal conservative. He proved it by indicating he had a budget for his campaign and stayed within it. Both of his major contenders outspent him by 8 to 1 and also over-spent their budgets. He got a rousing response as he promised to run his office in Washington the same way. The final speaker was the incumbent, Chris Cannon. His point was simple, he has always fought for our state and was in a position to have influence in Washington. My experience has been that all incumbents make this argument. He does have a good voting record but this argument always wears thin.

Well, I voted for the "statesman". After the count, my candidate was in a tenuous third place. The bottom two were eliminated and we voted again. I punched my card for the "statesman", checked for any hanging chads, and stuffed it into the ballot box. When the results were announced I was disappointed once again. My guy was a distant third. Then the unthinkable happened. Campaign volunteers for the "statesman" funneled into the convention hall carrying Chris Cannon signs; a clear signal that Leavitt was not only admitting defeat, but pointing his voters towards his choice for congress.

Understandably Chaffetz supporters booed the effort until the convention officials cleared the illegal campaigners from the hall. I was stunned. My "statesman" had ripped off his mask and all I could see was a politician. I was disappointed in my choice for congress, and the incumbent, who clearly welcomed this effort to sway Leavitt voters his way. Anything to win I guess. I quickly took out my final ballot and punched the number for Chaffetz.

Now, I'm just a basicguy, and some might say I'm not smart enough to understand how politics works. Maybe so. But I can say that something didn't feel quite right. Basically speaking, you can't claim to be a statesman and then act like a politician. Well, I suppose you can, but it just isn't right. I expect more from anyone who seeks to enter public life. I've had enough of the political elite, America's voted royalty, who assume that position affords privilege and wealth. I thought they were to defend the Constitution and serve the public. I guess things have changed. Maybe Jason Chaffetz will surprise me. I can only hope he's heard of the term "statesman".

Buying or Winning Votes?

Well, I've finally arrived. I feel as close to being a politician as I'm likely to ever get. I was nominated as a state delegate and selected by our precinct voters as part of a Republican caucus meeting. Over the ensuing weeks its been pretty much like the other times I've served as a delegate. But there was something different this time. The difference was probably in me... but it was different all the same. Let me explain.

A couple of weeks ago I was reading the local paper. The front page article of the local section stood out: "Lobbyists gave $125k to legislators" (Deseret News, Saturday, April 19, 2008, B6). That caught my eye. The article broke down some of the gifts that lobbyists were giving to our state legislators: $20,000 for entertainment; $10,00 for t-shirst, umbrellas, caps, etc.; $68,000 for lunches or dinners; and more. I don't know about you, but that sort of appears like bribes... buying favors. Do you know what the clincher was in the article? 89% of the reported gifts were to recipients whose names were undisclosed. Hmmm, added to all the favors, we now have all the secrets. I must admit, the article just didn't sit well with me.

As the weeks passed, my mail began to multiply. You got it, candidates opened the flood gates with arguments and invitations to meet them. All that was just fine. It is my duty to find out all that I can about each candidate so I can make an informed vote at the State Convention. But then I saw it. Candidate after candidate was inviting me to meet them at bbq's, restaurants, pizza parties, breakfast engagements, etc. I even got a 6-pack of bottled root beer. Then it happened. I started to feel like a politician. I thought: "So this is what it feels like!" These people want me to vote a certain way--their way--and they are willing to bribe me or buy my vote.

Well, I want you to know that I have not taken advantage of a single offer... my vote will be pure. It does make one wonder about the candidates. If they play this game on this little stage, what games will they play on the much bigger stage? Now, I'm just a Basicguy, and I may not know all about the bigger world out there, but it seems to me that some rules ought to apply in any game. They wouldn't change the rules from the regular season when they play the Super Bowl would they? Basically speaking, these guys are simply tipping their hand... showing their face.

Now there is one guy who hasn't offered any food or gifts of any sort, just opportunities to discuss the issues. He explained that he intended to run his campaign the way he would run the office if elected--on an appropriate budget. I guess buying me a slice of pizza wasn't in his budget. Hmmm, gotta like that... he's sort of set himself apart from the pack. I guess there's two ways to get votes... buy'em or win'em. This guy just may have won mine.

Legislating from the Throne

I've often heard some political activists talk about candidates for the Supreme Court or even an occasional member of the current court. They'd say: "We need someone who won't legislate from the bench!" At first I wondered what they were talking about. "Why would a supreme court justice be legislating" and "what is a bench?" Though I'm just a Basicguy, it still didn't take me long to figure out what they were trying to say. The bench is that stand that the justices sit on when they hear and respond to cases brought before them. And the legislating thing? Well, that's how laws are made, usually by the legislature, and should not be by a supreme court with a political agenda.

Well, all this got me thinking the other day. I was reading some of the transcript from the most recent debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Each candidate was warned that they would be pressed by constitutional matters, but it didn't take long to leave the Constitution and see the bickering back and forth over the candidates favorite issues. As I read, I began to wonder how many of the things they were promising to do for America actually related to the duties of a president as dictated by the Constitution. Well, not much.

It seems that most of the things presidential candidates talk about (and that goes for both parties) fall within the duties of the legislative branch, not the executive. Well, if that's the case, would it be fair to say: "We need someone who won't legislate from the throne?" Now, I voted for President Bush, but looking at his politics from this perspective, I wondered how many of the initiatives he instigated really didn't belong to the executive office of government? Here are some to think about: The Iraq war; Prescription drug benefits; NAFTA; CAFTA; No child Left Behind; etc., etc., etc.

Well, I imagine this line of discussion could spark some debate. So be it. There's nothing wrong with a healthy constitutional conversation. All I'd ask first is that you pull out your old pamphlet of the Constitution and review articles I and II of the Constitution. Article I deals with the Legislative Branch and Article II deals with the Executive. Put the current president and the candidates on trial.

Basically speaking, whenever you hear any politician put forth some fascinating plan for the country, ask yourself if the Constitution really allows them to do that. If it does, then maybe that person is a good choice. However, if it doesn't, it ought to worry us that such important people do not know the very Constitution they promise to protect and uphold on a stack of bibles. If we're not more vigilant on these constitutional issues, we may find that "legislating from the throne" is far worse than legislating from the bench. Keep your constitutional eyes open America.

Change the Climate on Climate Change

Was I just seeing things? I'm sure my eyes were playing tricks with me, but I thought that was Newt Gingrich sitting with Nancy Pelosi on TV. As I sat recently watching a program on TV, Newt and Nancy appeared on a commercial together. Nancy admitted that the to of them hadn't agreed on much over the years (to which Newt nodded his head in approval), she said there was one thing they both did agree on. Newt then announced that they both agreed on doing something about Global Climate Change. I about died.

You already know how I feel about climate change or global warming (see my blog entry titled: "The Spectacle of Daily Spectacle" on March 20, 2008). It's a scam. Current "real" science does not support such a claim. But the green movement in America, who blame man for all the ills on earth, would have us stall our economy and further indebt our nation to escape the coming climate crisis. Don't buy it. And there he was, Newt Gingrich alongside Nancy, having bought the green line hook, line, and sinker. He had swallowed the whole line and the rod and the reel. Newt, hurry to YouTube and watch The Great Global Warming Swindle before its too late!

If that wasn't enough, the Deseret News reported this morning that Gordon Brown called on the US and Europe "to lead a new era of global 'interdependence' aimed at solving international problems such as terrorism, poverty and climate change" (see Deseret News, Saturday, April 19, 2008, A12). There it was again... climate change. And you can bet that climate change is on his mind because he's bought into the assumption that man is the major contributor of climate change. We are in real trouble when the heads of state start pushing agendas based on fear instead of fact.

Now I know I'm just a Basicguy. I don't have a science degree. But as I listen to other sources besides the mainline media (that do not have an obvious liberal agenda), I'm convinced that the scientific community is not in agreement on this issue. Many do believe that there is evidence of climate change, but there is no evidence that pins it on man. Other natural forces are at work such as, the earth's ecosystem, changes in activity on the sun, and the CO2 created by domestic animals. Even a Basicguy can read. Gore is, and always has been, wrong. There is no scientific consensus on global warming. Basically speaking, we need to change the climate on the climate change discussion.

What We Do in the Name of Religion

I'm often surprised by what people will do to each other in the name of religion. Just this past presidential season displayed the widespread bias of evangelicals against Mormons. Though he tried to hide his disdain, Mr. Huckabee probably smiled when Mitt Romney opted to drop out of the race. Those Mormons are a cult you know and the nation has been spared being seized upon by this stray evil. Well, I suppose I shouldn't be a sore loser... but its tough for us Basicguy's to accept defeat or disappointment with the needed grace.

As interesting as I find this particular issue, there is a far bigger picture that I'd like to address in relation to religious abuse. I came across an interesting article today written by Ken Timmerman. He writes a column often dealing with the Middle East and the challenges this country faces there. He often has insights from well-placed connections. In this article he covered the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Notice this:

“The Kurdish regional government in Northern Iraq is providing a safe haven to several thousand Iraqi Christians who have fled persecution in other parts of the country, government officials and local pastors told Newsmax.

“Unlike refugee camps set up for some 100,000 Shia Muslims fleeing attacks from Sunnis, which are closely monitored by Kurdish security forces, Christians have been encouraged to live anywhere.

“‘Christians in Iraq need special attention, because they’ve been suffering because they are Christians,’ Deputy Prime Minister Omar Fattah told Newsmax in an exclusive interview in Erbil. ‘Maybe we give some instructions to others where they can go, but to Christians, never, because we are not afraid they will be terrorists.’”

Did you catch that? The Kurd’s welcome Iraqi Christians and allow them to live anywhere “because we are not afraid they will be terrorists.” They can’t do the same with sunni or shia Muslim’s because there is no telling what you’ll get. And yet the Christians flee Bagdad and other cities in their homeland because of the abuse they suffer… even unto death.

Now I know that there have been years of darkness even among Christianity. But that was ages ago. Christians have matured and come of age. Christianity led the world into an age of progress and civility. Then radical Islam showed up on stage and has violently imposed its archaic beliefs upon the world.

It’s sad isn’t it? A people who once offered the world so much in all the educational disciplines has fallen pray to a religion and a movement that seeks to plunge the world back into the dark ages or Old Testament times. All the progress and good that God has wrought through His children over the years is threatened by this growing threat.

So basically speaking, it is surprising what people are willing to do to each other in the name of religion. I’m glad to be part of a people that others “are not afraid they will be terrorists.” Now, if only Mr. Huckabee would let me be a Christian.

Hillary's Fantasy Stories

Over the years I've really enjoyed reading fantasy. J.R.R. Tolkien, Terry Brooks, Lloyd Alexander, and Susan Cooper have kept me entertained for many years. Now I know there are no Hobbits, and that a man named Allannon probably can't live for 300 years, but to relive the victory of light over darkness keeps me going back for more.

Recently, though, I've come to find out that I no longer need to make a trip to the library for a new fantasy fix. All I have to do is turn of the TV and watch any of the national news broadcasts. You see, a daily look at those politicians running for president of the United States is fantasy enough.

Lately, the fantasy author I've been most intrigued with is Hillary Clinton. Did you hear her colorful rendition of a visit she made to Bosnia while the First Lady? Man bullets were flying as she and Chelsea ran for cover. Oh, and don't forget the one where Chelsea was at ground zero during the terror filled morning of 9/11. Luckily she had just darted into a coffee shop, but heard the plane hit the building! What a close call. Hillary almost lost Chelsea twice. And don't forget how Hillary single handedly brokered piece accords in Ireland.

Wowzer! You see what I mean? Who needs a good fantasy book when you can get stories like these. Actually, that's really all these accounts are... just stories... inaccurate accounts of what really happened. Hillary has been found out as a fibber. She tends to stretch the truth. Now I'm just a Basicguy, but I think the word is liar. I don't know how else to describe her recent claims except as bald-faced lies.

When you read fantasy, you expect a world that is made up... make believe. When you listen to a candidate for president, you'd hope that the truth might be somewhere nearby. Not so with Hillary. If she can't tell the truth about a simple story, how could we possibly expect the truth from her in a campaign promise or a State of the Union speech? As for me, this lady has crossed a line. Basically speaking, she could never win my vote. 

The Spectacle of Daily Spectacle

The other night my wife, daughter and I were playing on the internet. We were googling crazy words and things when the idea came to google our names. To my surprise my name listed pages of hits. As we looked through the lists, most referred to books I had help write and a published article. But one entry caught my eye. It was a blog called The Daily Spectacle. As I explored the site I realized it was kept by a liberal living in Salt Lake City.

This guy had somehow noticed a brief letter I had written to the editor of the Deseret Morning News. Unbeknownst to me, he had clipped my message and proceeded to rip me on my opinion. I had no idea it was there or that anyone had responded to my message... I had no opportunity to carry on a conversation. But it was kinda cool that he at least referred to me as "Mr." (see http://desspec.blogspot.com/2006/10/opinion-bruce-l-andreason.html)

As I read his thoughts on the subject, I noticed that he claimed to have read research on global warming and knew that it was for real. Science had determined that global warming was a man-made problem and that "scientists aren't pulling this research out of their [posterior]". Then he told naysayers to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh for scientific insights. I assume that he assumed that Rush was my source.

Well, all of that is very interesting. But I'm glad to report that as of today most scientists doubt anymore that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. In fact a report today indicates that the oceans temperature have actually cooled a bit. And who hasn't seen the BBC special "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on YouTube in 8 parts? (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE)

Well, I know I'm just a Basicguy, but seeing things in hindsight, maybe its better to listen to Rush Limbaugh with half a brain tied behind his back than to Al Gore (who seems to be this guys source for his science) who laughably invented the internet and listened to his mother sing the theme song for the AFL-CIO as a babe in a crib years before it was written. Take your pick... but I know which one I'll listen to. Basically speaking, listen to the one who has no financial agenda... no reason to whip people into a frenzy and to make panicked choices that allow big special interests groups to rake in the bucks.