Obama: The Convenient Candidate

Now, don't get me wrong, I like things to be convenient just as much as any one else; the alarm clock next to the bed, a tall glass of ice water next to the easy chair, a Chick-fil-A down the street, or a laptop that connects to the internet in any room of the house. However, some conveniences are more one sided and are designed to deceive.

I've been watched the presidential contest for months now. Though I must admit, when my choice flamed out, I haven't been near as passionate, simply an interested observer. I have been amazed at the crowds that Obama commands at every stop and have wondered why. Now that time has passed and many things have been said, I can't help but conclude that Obama is the convenient candidate.

For example, Obama is conveniently black. Why claim to be an African-American when half of your DNA is white? Why not claim to be the other half? Or better yet, why not simply claim to be an American? The convenience here is to catch the historical wave. There is nothing new about saying you are an American running for president. But being the first black man to capture the White House is really saying something.

Obama is conveniently moderate. Now, being a conservative, I've noted the records of those who had thrown their hat into the presidential ring. Interestingly enough, Obama's record was the most liberal of all the candidates. He even bested Hillary Clinton... which is hard to do. But now, Obama claims centrist positions that he hasn't claimed in the past. One example is taking credit for backing a welfare bill in his home state of Illinois that he actually opposed as a state senator.

Obama is conveniently Christian. I know that he denies accusations about his Muslim past, but there are way too many reports about his life to excuse them. This is a Christian nation, for better or for worse. Better in my opinion. And would be more convenient for anyone running for president in a Christian nation to be an avowed Christian.

Now, as more news spreads throughout the blogosphere, be sure to pay attention. You may not hear much about these controversies on network news programs, but there will be plenty being blogged. Determine for yourself if Obama is for real or, like me, conveniently real.

Don't Take it Personal

Well, it's over. An entrenched incumbent lost his seat in a Utah Republican primary. Chris Cannon, a 12 year vet of Washington politics, was trounced by newcomer Jason Chaffetz. If I had a chance to talk to Mr. Cannon, I'd tell him not to take it personal. He had a voting record that makes a good conservative giddy, but was guilty by association. Most conservatives are generally ticked at congress because of the pathetic state of union. On a Republican watch spending got out of control, debt mounted to the size of Everest, earmarks burdened bills, entitlements grew, corruption spread, and immigration was never solved, etc. It was amazing, you couldn't tell the difference between a Democrat or a Republican.

So you see, Mr. Cannon, you became a target by association. And other conservatives like me hope that term limits come to many more who showed no leadership to stem this unwieldy tide. Unfortunately, Bush's "compassionate conservatism" spilled over the banks and washed a slug of congressmen down river. Mr. Cannon, you were one of them. And then you had the audacity to say that there is a lack of GOP unity in Utah and the US (see Deseret News, Thursday, June 26, 2008, A1, A6). Well, how are we supposed to be unified behind the kind of leadership our esteemed politicians have given us? And you wondered why the delegates at the Utah State Convention seemed "uncivil". I'd say they were appropriately mad.

Now, if I had a chance to talk to Jason Chaffetz, I'd say: don't take it personal. I know, it's the same council I'd give Mr. Cannon. I have my reasons. You see, Mr. Chaffetz, if you let this new position go to your head (like so many others), you'll just end up like Mr. Cannon. We didn't vote you in so you can be all that. You were in essence hired by the people to do a job. You are a public servant. We have no stomach for a political aristocracy. We need a statesman. (Something you said you wouldn't go to Washington to be... remember? Dumb comment, Mr. Chaffetz.) We also need someone with vision who can influence the party to bring sanity back into the halls of congress. Oh, by the way, since "we the people" employ you to do a job, we retain the right to "take things personal" if you choose some other insane course of action.

Finally, to all those who are elected officials, or want to be, and the party elite, don't take this personal. The Republican Party keeps sending requests for money. Why would a conservative want to continue to finance a party that has allowed itself to stray so far off course? This one wouldn't... and won't. Now, I'm just a basicguy, but I'd be willing to bet that other conservatives share this stance: I'm an American first, a conservative second, and a Republican third. Understand?

The Reds of Life

I just have one question: Why can't the Dodgers play the Reds every day? The Dodgers have their number. In the two series with the Reds this year, the Dodgers have only lost one game. As a Dodger fan that's nirvana. However, I'd feel really bad for the Reds fans... for about 3 minutes.

But isn't that a lot like life? We really don't get to choose who we play. We all face an endless parade of challenges and often the order in which they come seems to be unfair or overwhelming. I suppose that's why we feel relief when we come to challenges or trials that are familiar--those that we've faced before and have successfully stood up to. Oh, that we could always face the Reds in our life's experiences.

Party or Principle?

I recently had a conversation with a colleague that really got me thinking. He shared an insight I had never considered before. Now, I'm not a young guy by any means, but most of my real political experience has happened since just before the Reagan Revolution. That fact has shaped my beliefs and assumptions about the Republican Party.

My parents were on opposite sides of the political spectrum. My dad was a WWII vet and a dyed in the wool Democrat. My mom on the other hand opted for the Republicans. There was one year when we had political signs in our yard of opposing candidates. One thing you can say is that they each had passion.

So, when it was my turn to enter the voting world and choose a party, who did I follow? My dad. Well, it does make some sense, I was a guy. Most guys were Democrats... right? Not long after I cast a vote for McGovern. However, when he lost badly, I felt like a loser. And whenever I lost in my youth, it wasn't unusual for me to quit. So, I quit politics... for a while. Then one day, I was introduced to Ronald Reagan. No, not personally. He was on TV sharing his reasons for opposing abortion. Something rang true about this man. Was it his warmth? His sincerity? He just made sense.

From that time on, I watched Reagan rise to the top of the Republican world. He brought a conservative message to the US political landscape that made sense. It drew me into the Republican Party, engaged my interest and political energy, and fired my hopes and political passion. And I wasn't alone. From Reagan on, I've assumed that republicanism was synonymous with conservatism.

So, now, back to my colleague. Tom Valletta (http://vallettapapers.blogtownhall.com/) has a similar political genealogy as mine... only he was very involved in the political process. He actually worked on McGovern's campaign. One day I expressed my frustration with the state of the Republican Party. Our ship was adrift and has left its political moorings. It was filled with politicians who have forgotten conservative principles and have done little to offset the growth of big government, entitlements, and debt.

Can you imagine how surprised I was when Tom pointed out that the party was simply returning to what it once was... the Grand Ole Party. I asked him to explain. He said, "Conservatism is a political movement or philosophy. With the rise of Reagan, conservatism hijacked the Republican Party, and has had a good run of influencing the direction of political affairs. Conservatism has simply lost its hold on the party."

We talked for a few minutes longer. It all made sense. My own history with the party was mostly a conservative history. I had never known the party to be any thing different. So, what am I? Am I a Republican or a conservative? A conservative Republican, I suppose. If the Republican Party turns its back on conservative principles (which in some ways, Bush has been guilty of this very thing), then what am I? I'm still a conservative. Basically speaking, I'm an American first, a conservative second, and party member third. Nothing else makes sense to me. And I owe it all to my colleague.

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.