Congressman Chris Cannon vs. Challenger Jason Chaffetz
Freedom and Prosperity in Utah’s 3rd Congressional District
Alpine, UT | June 23, 2008| It’s time to vote. Tomorrow, Utahan’s will once again have an opportunity to send a political message to the country. It’s this capitalist’s hope that tomorrow-before we vote-we might all remember to “wake-up” and “turn our brains on” as I remind my radio listeners everyday at the beginning of my AM talk show.
The question before voters in Utah’s 3rd Congressional District is who to nominate for the Republican ticket. Once the emotion of a closely contested election is appropriately set aside, the thoughtful choice is obvious.
Having spent significant one-on-one face time with each of the candidates, it is my firm judgment that Congressman Chris Cannon is the superior choice. He is a leader, a teacher, and the best Representative for Utah’s 3rd Congressional District. Mr. Chaffetz, as ambitious, capable, and clever spoken as he is, is still an aspiring student in the fight for freedom, prosperity and peace.
While there is still a general election in November, for all practical purposes, the winner of tomorrow’s contest among Republicans will head to Washington as a member of the newest Congress and once all the campaign adrenaline subsides, there is no rational reason for Utah Republican’s to abandon Representative Chris Cannon. There are several obvious reasons to support him, and electing his contender, Mr. Chaffetz, will only weaken the Republican cause.
While the nuances of debate could go on and on, these three overarching arguments create a simple framework for clearly making the best decision for Republicans in the primary election tomorrow.
Argument #1 - There is no rational reason to abandon Representative Cannon.
Republicans, and conservatives more particularly, are reeling from poorly executed political strategies over the last several years. The Democrats currently control both branches of the US Congress, a majority of state governorships and a plurality of state legislatures. In national polls Barack Obama is currently polling at 15 points ahead of Republican John McCain. At a time like this, should Republicans in Utah be looking to change horses in the middle of the battle?
Congressman Cannon has earned one of the most conservative voting records in the entire Congress by think tanks, media surveys, and independent vote tracking organizations alike. He has received the strong endorsements of Republican leaders both nationally and locally (both Utah Senators Hatch and Bennett have been extremely generous and complimentary of Cannon). These endorsements don’t come easy or without consequence. Republicans in Utah might consider if they have a specific reason that bests these recommendations when viewed alongside Congressman Cannon’s actual voting record.
What are the supposed “deal breakers” that his challenger suggests would justify Utahan’s abandoning Cannon?
Challenger Jason Chaffetz offers four key points for Utahan’s to consider.
1. Immigration
Many Republicans rightly consider illegal immigration a hot-button issue. Chaffetz criticizes Cannon for his supposed failures - but what are they actually? I had the opportunity to visit personally with Mr. Chaffetz, and when pressed, his argument boiled down to an example where Congressman Cannon missed one of perhaps twenty immigration related votes. This supposedly demonstrates, according to Chaffetz, that Cannon doesn’t really want to solve the immigration problem.
The funny thing about this argument however, is that if you were to ask one hundred registered Republicans what the vote was, and what policy was so critical that missing the vote would cost him his seat - I’ll wager that not one could accurately respond.
While most of the registered Republicans voting in tomorrow’s election would find it difficult to describe (even after a diligent effort by the Chaffetz campaign) the actual policy differences between the candidates, the deeper questions are even more pointedly in Cannon’s favor.
Consider, Chaffetz is claiming to take a “harder” stand on sending “illegals” back to their country of origin. Okay. But, this is easy political rhetoric that scores points with the frustrated right wing of the party- but ironically-when pressed for details about how to accomplish this hard line approach, Chaffetz fails to demonstrate a) that he has a specific plan, b) that he has any strategy with a realistic chance of rallying other Republicans to his position; or, c) that having Cannon back home here in Utah while Chaffetz is in D.C. touting his highly abstract-even if pleasant-solutions to his congressional colleagues would have any more of a realistic chance for legislative progress than we’ve had so far.
To make the point more clearly, there is a difference between Mr. Chaffetz stating a principled answer to a policy question on immigration (which position I tend to agree with by the way) and actually knowing what to do about it. Governing-Republicans must not forget-is about more than the “right answers.” Getting things done in Washington takes more than articulate speech making, it takes leadership- and that is precisely what Utah would be loosing by abandoning Mr. Cannon.
Now, to get even more to the point. Even if Utahan’s were to consider Cannon’s performance on immigration poor- as Chaffetz suggests-the real question is, does unseating one of the most Conservative voting Congressmen in a Democratically controlled Congress increase or decrease the likelihood of real immigration reform happening in the near future? The answer is obvious.
2. Defense
This is perhaps one of Chaffetz’s most disappointing arguments. While suggesting that national defense is a serious issue to which he brings a more sound policy approach-Chaffetz fails, during direct questioning, to identify one single policy difference between his proposed course and Cannon’s actual record.
Chaffetz does decry issues such as poor health care and education benefits for veterans. However, when pressed, Chaffetz even admits he was completely unaware of the significant debate going on right now in the Congress over the new G.I. Bill passed last week by Rep. Nancy Pelosi 416 votes to 12. How would Mr. Chaffetz’s leadership affect the issue? It apparently wouldn’t if, as he admitted, he was completely unaware of the bill.
Congressman Cannon has a 98.7% favorable rating for voting to keep America’s military strong and national defense as a priority. Why would Utah Republicans be interested in changing course?
3. Education
Cutting past the tag lines, the only major issue repeatedly raised regarding education, that supposedly distinguishes Cannon and Chaffetz, is Mr. Cannon’s previous support of No Child Left Behind. This is ironic given that Mr. Cannon has explained his past vote, changed his position and has repeatedly been sent back to Washington by Utah voters since that vote.
I asked Mr. Cannon about this issue, the first time he appeared on FreeCapitalist radio. He spoke openly and candidly about the situation. First, he suggested he regretted the vote. Second, he suggested that the implementation of the law was what made the situation far worse than could have been predicted before hand. Finally, he offered suggestions for how to move forward with education reform and detailed his efforts since that vote several terms ago.
Mr. Cannon’s explanation was thoughtful and his willingness to speak candidly about an issue that has come to bite many Republicans over the years was refreshing. Chaffetz, however, appears stuck in the past on the issue. The Provo Daily Herald recently offered the following insightful conclusion on the situation:
“For Chaffetz to hammer Cannon for his initial support of No Child Left Behind is unfair. After all, Cannon isn’t hammering Chaffetz for campaigning for Micheal Dukakis not so many years ago.”
4. Spending
Perhaps most striking is Mr. Chaffetz criticism that fiscal discipline needs to be returned to Washington. His argument is of course true. What candidate couldn’t say this?
Strangely, Mr. Chaffetz’s ideas on the subject are revealing-in odd ways-of a deeper intention. For example, he charges that in order to change fiscal spending we’ve “got to elect different people” but he forgets that the different people argument only works if you remember that the Democrats are controlling the Congress and the way to change the discipline of the Congress is to send people from the other side. Cannon has a 92% voting record when it comes to fiscal discipline - perhaps Chaffetz is thinking he could muster 95% or even 100% but without more Republicans in D.C., exactly how does this matter?
When Mr. Chaffetz suggests that for Utahan’s to get different results in Washington we should send different people, my suggestion is that we send one fewer Representative from the Democratic side of the isle. If Mr. Chaffetz or any other future contender wants to make a stand, take on the Democrats first - or at least a left leaning Republican. By taking on Mr. Cannon, Chaffetz demonstrates its more about his political future than it is about fighting the good fight.
Finally, in the arena of finance, Chaffetz has jumped on the McCain bandwagon of demonizing “earmarks.” This is ironic given that Mr. Cannon is consistently rated as being more conservative than the left of center ratings commonly applied to Mr. McCain.
Voters would do well to remember that earmarks are an elected representative’s tool for exacting financial discipline against professional bureaucrats. Earmarks are instructions for money already authorized, not votes for increased spending. Chaffetz suggests he won’t use earmarks, which is to say, he won’t provide specific leadership or discipline over the regulators who implement the laws he would vote to pass. Interesting.
Argument #2 - There are several obvious reasons to support Representative Cannon.
First, consider his actual record. While almost any Utah Republican might find a vote or even several that he or she might disagree with Representative Cannon about, is anyone so naïve as to believe the same wouldn’t be the case with Mr. Chaffetz? Is it ever different with any elected official?
The reason we have a representative government is that American’s put their elected officials in a position to know more about the larger political interplay and the consequences of individual decisions. Congressman Cannon has one of the most conservative and consistent voting records of any elected official. When compared to his predecessors in Utah, when evaluated by bills sponsored, attendance at critical votes, and leadership in committee assignments Congressman Cannon compares favorably by almost all measures.
Second, the endorsements received by Congressman Cannon do not come easily. Not only has he been endorsed and supported by his colleagues in the Congress, and by the President of the United States, he has also been supported by pro-free enterprise organizations including those with a pro-emigration reform interest such as the world’s largest organized effort for businesses and free-enterprise in America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Should Utahan’s take no stock of these endorsements because of an emotional, and at times insatiable, desire for “change?”
Third, Congressman Cannon has a firm grasp on both the political philosophy and legislative reality of core American principles. Have Utahan’s listened to Congressman Cannon articulate his understanding of conservative principles? On FreeCapitalist Radio over the years there have been very few guests who can compare to Mr. Cannon’s level of passion and concern, informed advocacy, and mature grasp on the very real battle going on in Washington.
Mr. Chaffetz may indeed be sincere, but when I visited with him in my home after the state Republican Convention - he came off as a policy minded aspirant, more than a principle grounded advocate for freedom. I mean no insult to Mr. Chaffetz, I would prefer him representing Utah to, lets say, your average Democrat. But, he did not strike me as a man who had a grasp on the intellectual foundations of freedom.
Like I say on the radio, being right is only half the battle. Being right for the right reason - now that is a more powerful formula. In all seriousness, do Utah Republicans really want to send Chris Cannon packing when Mr. Chaffetz has not yet read, let alone grappled with, Bastiat’s “The Law” or von Mises’ “Human Action?”
Argument #3 - Electing Mr. Chaffetz will only weaken the Republican cause.
The biggest reason Republicans have failed strategically, and why Conservatives have failed to ever control a majority in the US Congress is because Republican voters have too often been apt to change course-without regard to a more mature understanding of the battle we are facing in America. First and foremost what Republican’s should be concerned about in 2008 is increasing their numbers in Washington. Mr. Chaffetz chose to campaign against Congressman Cannon rather than Democrat Matheson because, by his own admission, he didn’t think he could beat Matheson. I would argue this is part of the problem.
Let me explain in more detail. Shortly after the FreeCapitalists helped ward off his near upset of Mr. Cannon at the state Republican Convention I invited Mr. Chaffetz to my home. I wanted to visit with him about his agenda, his motivations and to discuss the mission of the FreeCapitalist Project and our interest in freedom, prosperity and peace.
We spent several hours visiting about all sorts of issues. I found Mr. Chaffetz to be intelligent, sincere, and authentic. I like Jason. But, a few things stick out in my mind from that meeting.
First, I asked Mr. Chaffetz what he would do if he should lose this election. His response was that he anticipated he would return to the private sector. I asked about other political possibilities to which he responded, “this is kind of a one-hit wonder” situation for me. He referenced that in his mind efforts like those of former candidate John Swallow demonstrated that it was a one shot opportunity for him to “make his mark.” I probed him and asked him, if he was so serious about fighting for freedom why he would give up after only one shot. He did not provide a substantive answer. I choose note to support a candidate whose commitment to freedom is limited to serving in elected office.
Second, after letting Mr. Chaffetz know that while I was the founder and President of the FreeCapitalist Project (we have approximately 12,000 FreeCapitalist minded constituents in Utah) all of our members were free to make up their own minds about how to vote, I invited him to visit our online community. I suggested that he could post his position statements there, engage in discussion on our forums, etc. To my knowledge he did not take advantage of that opportunity. I thought that was rather odd given that FreeCapitalists fielded over 10% of the delegates to the state Republican convention and that we represent a particularly active political segment of the population. I think his behavior is reflective of the tribalistic mentality that suggests its important to be the head of the tribe, but at the same time shows little interest in leading in other arenas. This problem has plagued Conservatives for generations.
Congressman Cannon has a business, legal, and public service background before and during his time in office that demonstrates his commitment to the principles of prosperity. Mr. Chaffetz is handicap here because of his lack of political experience, his lack of civic service in the interests of freedom outside of politics, and a lack of any endorsement from his previous boss, Utah Governor Huntsman. I asked him about this, and about his commitment to the cause of freedom, despite holding elective office, his answer was still that it was this election or nothing. I find that answer troubling.
Finally, I tried to ask Mr. Chaffetz about his own agenda. I asked him about his political philosophy, who he enjoyed reading, and about some of his key influences. I was surprised that he could be so policy sharp and yet have so little philosophical depth.
Quite frankly, it worried me. I was sitting there thinking to myself that he might indeed come to represent Utah in the US Congress, and here again would be another Republican who did not understand the intellectual history and the consequences of the monumental, ideological, war being waged across the world for the last eighty years.
I was even more surprised that in over two hours visiting one-on-one Mr. Chaffetz did not try even one time to learn anything about me or the FreeCapitalist organization. I don’t remember him asking me one question. Nor has he followed up since then. I don’t have any personal feelings that are negative, but it seemed to demonstrate to me that he was more interested in winning my support than he was in earning the respect of my associates. This again seemed to me to be a collectivist mentality that suggests that voters might be persuaded to make a good decision during an election year (through pull, strategy, marketing, and cleverness) but once the election is over-the consequence of this kind of thinking tends to bring about a more tyrannical government-not a more free one.
I think Mr. Chaffetz has demonstrated extraordinary ability during this campaign. But, he is far less qualified to Represent Utah today than is Mr. Cannon. His experience and political convictions have amounted, so far, to nothing more than opportunism.
I sincerely think Jason wants to win-but I’m not convinced of his commitment. Depending on the future course he pursues, I consider it a very real possibility that, I could consider him an ally and even be a supporter. But, not today.
Today Jason Chaffetz would not be a good choice for Utah, and certainly not when compared to Congressman Chris Cannon.
Congressman Cannon is a man - like all of us - with faults. However, in his capacity as an elected Representative, he stands head and shoulders above his challenger. This is why even a number of his former opponents have regularly endorsed him.
The reader may be interested to note-it was Congressman Cannon who initially sought out the FreeCapitalist Project. We had been publishing a free, monthly newsletter called the “FreeCapitalist” and he walked into our offices and asked who was responsible for publishing such information. On our first meeting he expressed sincere interest in helping support the message of prosperity and freedom. He demonstrated a great interested in our cause. He maintained the endorsement of some of our other supporters such as the late Dr. W. Cleon Skousen and the late H. Les McGuire.
From that first day in our office, Congressman Cannon has maintained an open channel of communication to FreeCapitalists and other freedom minded individuals. He has repeatedly been our guest on the radio and open for discussion with almost no difficulty whatsoever. In my own experience, I have personally watched him go the extra mile to reach out to those who have at one time or another disagreed with him.
Congressman Cannon understands the principles of freedom and prosperity. He has represented Utah. While I sympathize with several of those who are frustrated with government, and even with Mr. Cannon-I suggest he is a great asset for the state of Utah and we should count ourselves fortunate that he is willing to endure the heavy price of being our Representative.
If Mr. Chaffetz is the victor tomorrow, it will send yet another message to America that Utah cannot yet discern her place as a leader in the movement for liberty and prosperity. All will not be lost, but the first thing I’ll do is send Mr. Chaffetz another copy of our Primer along with Bastiat’s The Law.
Congressman Cannon, if he is the victor, won’t need either, being thoroughly familiar with each. I recommend to all FreeCapitalists, to all of our associates, and to all Utah Republicans voting in the 3rd Congressional district - vote for Chris Cannon.
Let’s hope that tomorrow the voters show up, awake and with their brains-on. Congressman Cannon has much work to do, and much left to accomplish in Washington as we carry forward in the cause of freedom, prosperity and peace.
No Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
I heartily agree with this post! Chris Cannon will get my vote tomorrow. I had the opportunity to be a Utah State Delegate. I personally spoke with both Mr. Cannon and Mr. Chaffetz. While Mr. Chaffetz has a very dynamic personality, it was obvious that he doesn’t share in the same principles of freedom that are vital to America’s Future. Mr. Cannon’s presentation and comments were substantially different. He gave concrete answers to many of the issues on people’s minds today. He has shown by his own actions that he has Utah’s interests in mind. I will be happy tomorrow to cast my vote for Congressman Cannon!
June 24th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jason Chaffetz is of the political bent that “running for office” is an end in and of itself. Somehow he has missed the “serving one’s country” part of the equation. That’s why it’s “one election or nothing” for Jason–because serving the people isn’t in the cards, and being elect is just a career move. That’s why, as you put it, he can be “policy sharp and yet have so little philosophical depth.”
This campaign is like taking a test in high school, and Chaffetz is “cramming” to try to win. He has answers, but he doesn’t even really know what the questions are.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:23 am
While attempting to imply that you are fair and open-minded, I find it interesting that you admit that you “helped ward off his near upset of Mr. Cannon at the state Republican Convention.” It seems to me that you had all ready formed your opinion before inviting Chaffetz to your home.
The Republican party has lost it’s way. While I would like more representatives with an R after their name, I agree with Chaffetz that we need to shake things up in Washington. Particularly if John McCain (whom I plan to vote for) becomes president, we need conservatives that listen to their constituents and not just defend the status-quo in Washington.
As defenders of the Constitution, I would have expected you to be more supportive of a citizen-leader embodied by the likes of George Washington who left his plantation to serve and then returned home.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Unbelievable! Sychophants! Everything you have ever stood for and espoused just went out the window with this endorsement. I used to love your stuff, now I know you don’t understand.
Reasons to now and forever vote for anyone but Cannon:
The Patriot Act
The Military Commissions Act
The Protect America Act
Real ID
No Child Left Behind
Defending Verizon and AT&T for spying on American’s cellphones
(All these sound so great and strip away your civil liberties. Cannon heartily endorses them all.)
Incumbents must go! They are the reason our country is in so much trouble. How dare you proclaim liberty principles and endorse anyone even close to Cannon, Bennett or Hatch. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2035423/posts
Your homework is to read: The Law by Bastiat and look up these bills listed. You won’t be singing a Cannon tune then.
BTW, Cannon votes inline with the Constitution a mere 33% of the time. Hillary is right around there too. Stand up for our Constitutional Republic and tell these incumbents we’ve had enough!
You guys do so much good, but you really blew it here.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:46 am
Rick, you must be kidding endorsing Cannon over Chaffetz. All I have to remember about Cannon is his statement to the Mexican (illegal) population when he said to MALDEF “We love immigrants in Utah. We don’t make the distinction very often between legal and illegal,” (and as discribed by Fox News: Cannon’s remarks are entirely consistent with the beliefs of MALDEF’s co-founder, Mario Obledo, who said in June 1998 “California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave. They should go back to Europe.”)- Fox News 4-1-2004. You, Mr. Rick, are an arrogant hack. A social, political, economic and spiritual want-to-be. A poor kid from the wrong side of the Casper rail road tracks trying to be something. Perhaps some day you can get the “party” to support you in becoming a commissar! By the way, I don’t miss hearing your self promoting radio program, and don’t send me any more email promoting your baloney!
June 24th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Politicians today are very good at one thing - getting elected. Chris Cannon is no exception. Sure, Chaffetz is young and inexperienced. That is why I voted for him. He hasn’t been corrupted by big money in Washington. The House can stand for a new Rookie or two. Actually, it needs them to replace the moral rot that is there. (google 545 People) What is most important in an elected official, as Rick should know, is PUBLIC VIRTUE. It means to use your power for the betterment of others, even when it is to your personal loss. The founding fathers, whom Rick would tell us to emulate, had public virtue to the point of loosing their families, fortunes and their lives all for the freedom of their fellow countrymen. Where are the men with public virtue today?
Cannon is a good public speaker. He is also two faced (as other posters have shown). This is nothing new. founding father Alexander Hamilton, a brilliant politician and businessman, was the proponent and driving force behind the adoption of the 1st US Bank. This bank helped the nation get out of a depression, but it was also privately owned and the owners used their power for personal gain. It’s successor,the 2nd US Bank, nearly caused a collapse of the market (intentionally) when President Jackson vetoed the bill to extend it’s contract and withdrew government funds.
Today politicians in Washington are tempted greatly with bribes to vote the way corrupt companies want and another private bank, the FED, has control of our currency. This is why we have such terrible trouble. We need a representative who will not go along with the game as Cannon has. The example of Hamilton shows that it is not easy to detect a man with public virtue. I feel that Chaffetz, uninitiated but willing to learn and take responsibility, is a much better choice. He knows that I am voting for him on the chance that he will have public virtue. If he wins the seat, the test will begin.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
1. This writer is a biased Cannon supporter.
2. Cannon’s campaign tactics have been particularly slimy and dishonest this cycle around.
3. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Incumbants are reelected 98% of the time. No wonder DC is a cauldron of corruption.
4. Cannon wouldn’t return calls of his precinct chairs, let alone his consituents, unless you’re a donor.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I love winning arguments against the BOC. Let me give a sample of the way Concerned Sheep and the Patriotic Sheep in the BOC act when reason abandons them.
From nwalker:
If you are as messed up as this misguided support then I really do not need to have your emails clogging up my box.
From dcatmull:
Phewy! Your arguments are falling on deaf ears as I love the feeling of spring cleaning and always like the feeling of a clean kitchen before I start cooking. OUT WITH THE OLD IN WITH THE NEW!
My Response: Notice how my support is misguided - but no argument is made. I spent several hours composing the message posted here, made several arguments and nwalker and his associates attempt to use zero reason, just insults and name calling. This is how the BOC works. In the Primer, in the BOC essay, I wrote: “…but they don’t want to take the responsibility to actually get informed. As a result, this twenty percent are blown about by almost every passionate voice they hear.”
Now, I’ll take a diffrent approach on another kind of response. This one actually looks like he’s making an argument but I’ll show he is not. Also, notice - still no direct response to a single thing I published.
From kchenshaw:
Unbelievable! Sychophants! Everything you have ever stood for and espoused just went out the window with this endorsement. I used to love your stuff, now I know you don’t understand.
My Response: Okay, why is that? This primary election is, for Republicans, between two candidates. A voter has three options. Cannon, Chaffetz, or no vote. Notice how this member of the BOC doesn’t address or defend either Chaffetz or the no vote option. In my essay I argue that Chaffetz will make the Republican cause worse and that there are good reasons to support Cannon - but my arguments goes un-addressed.
But kchenshaw continues, Reasons to now and forever vote for anyone but Cannon: The Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, The Protect America Act, REAL ID, No Child Left Behind, Defending Verizon and ATT for spying on American’s cellphones (All these sound so great and strip away your civil liberties. Cannon heartily endorses them all.)
My Response: Notice how these are not arguments. This is sensationalism. Making a laundry list of “topics” and then saying “Cannon heartily endorses them all.
Besides, Congressman Cannon does not heartily endorse them all and this member of the BOC doesn’t bother to provide any reason to believe so. But, to keep the debate simple - let me ask a few things….
1) Would a Cannon vote in the opposite direction have changed any outcome here?
2) Is a vote in the affirmative on any bill a “hearty” endorsement?
3) Is there ever a principled reason to vote for a bill that you personally disagree with?
4) Is it possible to disagree with Congressman Cannon on these votes and still endorse him as a better option than voting for Chaffetz or boycotting the vote all together?
5) Finally, of course, all of these items aren’t votes by the way and Congressman Cannon does not agree with them - see his own website giving explanation on several of these topics. For example, Cannon has been leading the fight to radically reform or eliminate No Child Left Behind over the past several years.
The problem with the BOC is that this level of thinking escapes them. Nevertheless,
kchenshaw continues:
Incumbents must go! They are the reason our country is in so much trouble.
My Response: No, Mr. Chensahw we are in trouble because we are ignorant. Changing elected officials in Washington will not solve our problems. It will take an informed and educated citizenry to restore liberty, and thinking that electing new tribal leaders will make up for this is why the cause of Republicans and conservatives has been failing in this war of ideas for nearly 80 years. I invite you to read my Primer, where I’ve attempted to thoroughly address this very idea.
Again kchenshaw continues:
How dare you proclaim liberty principles and endorse anyone even close to Cannon, Bennett or Hatch.
My Response: Well, that’s interesting. Why is the “how dare you” exclamation persuasive here? What about Dr. Skousen - he endorsed both Hatch and Bennett until the day he died in Jan of 2006 - should he too have stopped proclaiming liberty? My reply here is “how dare you turn off your brain.” That is a much larger betrayal of liberty. Secondly, how dare you judge Chris Cannon, who is a real person, a friend of mine, a friend of freedom, and a man deserving of at least the respect we afford those who legitimately represent the people who elect them. I would suspect if he was as bad as you “think” then you could actually make at least one argument against him besides name calling and vague insinuations. Heck, you might even start by responding to my actual arguments. They’re not unbeatable, but you’d actually have to try.
kchenshaw continues:Your homework is to read: The Law by Bastiat and look up these bills listed. You won’t be singing a Cannon tune then. BTW, Cannon votes inline with the Constitution a mere 33% of the time. Hillary is right around there too. Stand up for our Constitutional Republic and tell these incumbents we’ve had enough! You guys do so much good, but you really blew it here.
My response: Well, I have read the Law. Specifically, I enjoy the section were Bastiat argues, “Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.” Doesn’t this seem to apply here to Mr. Chenshaw and his collegues approach. Bastiat continues in the Law, “There are too many “great” men in the world — legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.”
This last argument by Bastiat is consistent with the warning I’ve given of Chaffetz, he wants to be in power - because he craves power. Predictably, my BOC friends will say, “Ah, but Chris Cannon fits Bastiat’s description… to which Bastiat responds in anticipation, “Now someone will say: “You yourself are doing this very thing. True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different sense;…it is solely for the purpose of persuading them…”
I could make a new argument here about what I judge Congressman Cannon’s intentions to be, since I know him personally, have spent several hours discussing political strategy with him, and my other associates such as Skousen and McGuire - but my argument would be dismissed, and this isn’t the best palce for it. My point is to respond to Chenshaw’s lip service. I have read the law and have reasons for my positions which I have spelled out. Why not do me the courtesy of actually responding? The answer, in silence, is deafening.
Now, before I call it a post - I want to give you my favorite example of a response from the BOC. It is the most hostile, but most revealing. It follows the same pattern.
Lyle H writes: Rick, you must be kidding endorsing Cannon over Chaffetz.
My Response: Watch how he ignores both the issue of my arguments published in a public forum to which he is supposedly responding and how he ignores a comparison to Chaffetz at all, making the same mistake as his previous BOC collegues… but with much more flare…
He continues: All I have to remember about Cannon is his statement to the Mexican (illegal) population when he said to MALDEF “We love immigrants in Utah. We don’t make the distinction very often between legal and illegal,” (and as discribed by Fox News: Cannon’s remarks are entirely consistent with the beliefs of MALDEF’s co-founder, Mario Obledo, who said in June 1998 “California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave. They should go back to Europe.”)- Fox News 4-1-2004.
My Response: Okay, if this is an argument, then I am a snowman. Cannon’s remark - speaks for itself. It is true that in Utah (as with other places in the country - we seldom make that distinction outside of politics. Lyle’s argument that this is similar to MALDEF’s co-founder is absurd. Look at the two statements. How are they similar? One talks about making a distinction in civil discourse and one talks about political takeover. Notice how Lyle doesn’t want to take responsibility for the argument so he simply blames Fox News. No matter who made the comparison, its illogical to say the least.
Now, what I will say, for the LDS audience in Utah, what Congressman Cannon’s remarks reminded me of at the time. They reminded me of a talk given in the Provo Tabernacle by Russell M. Ballard wherein he said it was important to treat all men as children of God, independent of our political distinctions. He also said that the Church, by practice, does not make the distinction legal or illegal. I think what Congressman Cannon had to say was something along these lines. I agree wit him, that all political considerations aside, it is important that we not demonize whole sections of people in the process of our political debates. This has dangerous historical precedent and is unjustified. Remember the words of Jefferson in the Declaration when he said, “All men” he didn’t say “All men born in America.”
Lyle Continues, and his true character starts to come out: You, Mr. Rick, are an arrogant hack. A social, political, economic and spiritual want-to-be. A poor kid from the wrong side of the Casper rail road tracks trying to be something. Perhaps some day you can get the “party” to support you in becoming a commissar!
My Response: Is this an argument? What does this have to do with the issue at hand? What is arrogant in my article? It is interesting to suggest that I am a second hander, given Lyle’s failure to articulate one argument on his own, and then when he tries he has to blame Fox News for the reasoning. Does he have something against Casper? I did, btw, grow up on the north side of the tracks in Casper - something bigoted people in Casper have been known to rail about for decades. You know blacks and Mexicans also live on the north side of the tracks in Casper. And as far as me becoming a commissar, that would be funny. If he wasn’t serious I’d be laughing.
Lyle’s triumphant finale is: By the way, I don’t miss hearing your self promoting radio program, and don’t send me any more email promoting your baloney!
My Response: While I’m sure he’s waiting for a government program to address the issue, every email I send has a really simple invention on it called the “unsubscribe” link. I love capitalism.
Well, this is what we are up against. Otherwise good people who’s brain turns into mush when its important. I’ve appreciated a few responses (even some who disagree with me) that were not brain-off particularly a gentleman’s named Phillip. I’m trying to get his permission to post it publicly.
The market place of goods and services is like the marketplace of ideas - it works best when men are free. Also, like all capitalist minded individuals understand both force and deception are destructive of such freedom. Too bad these members of the BOC can’t learn to be honest with us and with themselves. It would make for a much better debate.
If Mr. Chaffeetz wins today, it will be a victory fueled by the BOC and it is a much more dangerous conspiracy than the CFR, the Trilateralists, or any supporting group of the FED. No conspiracy can survive among free men - except there be a large BOC contingent firing their weapons in the wrong direction.
Wake up my friends. We can disagree on many things - but to disagree implies an element of reason.
BTW - anybody notice the “Why I support Chris Cannon YouTube(tm) campaign? Some pretty interesting folks speaking out.
I’ll respond to a few of these other comments later - I’m off to go produce for a while in another arena.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I appreciate your desire to use logic, but your ability to have any authority on the matter goes out the window when you begin calling people names (BOC) and then accuse nwalker of using names.
The arrogance of the “I’m smarter than you” from all angles of the comments, including from Mr Koerber, is frightening. It’s the “if you don’t think like me, you’re brain is mush, you’re brain is off, or you’re part of a conspiracy.”
What is this striking desire to tell people “here’s why Cannon is better” but not be able to leave it at just that. Why must there be an added “if you think otherwise, you’re part of the BOC or you’re brain is mush?” It’s ridiculous.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Rusty,
You’re missing the point. Have you read my BOC article? I am not calling nwalker or anyone else “names.” I am classifying their behavior. You are doing the same thing, you are trying to chastise me and others for our behavior. The BOC is an essay about BRAIN-OFF behavior. Your premise itself is a contradiction.
Secondly, I’d like you to show me where a) I express the idea that “I am smarter than you” and b) why, if I am being more articulate and rational, it is someone inappropriate to point that out. Your approach Rusty, is part of the problem we are facing today. You seem to think that criticizing is inappropriate unless you’re the one doing it. I am critical of the BOC and of your approach because, like Yeats writes, “The best lack conviction.” Conviction is not the same as passion. Conviction implies some rational standard. What is your rational standard?
My arguments stand on their own. The people who I was pointing out were not being rational. This is not name calling, this is critical thinking. I know it doesn’t happen a lot in the world today, but wake up and pay attention.
As far as your, “Why not leave it at that argument” you are also being flimsy in your argument. I wrote the essay, in a very respectable, rational tone - and I did indeed “leave it at that.” Then the comments that were coming in, in opposition to the article did not directly address a single one of my arguments. Now, if you are suggesting that I should sit back, publish on my website complaints that suggest I am a “sychophants”and that I am a “social, political and spiritual wanna-be” you have a severe misunderstanding of the purpose of public debate.
I did not initiate the name calling Rusty, and I did not engage in it. I challenge you to demonstrate one single sentence where this is the case. Use your brain. Think. I responded to name calling, just like you have chosen to do. The difference between you and I is that I am not afraid to call a spade a dirty old shovel. You seem to want to play the Rodney King card, “Can’t we all just get along.” But in this battlefield, in the world of clashing ideas, you suggest to me that “getting along” is a virtue at the expense of pointing out the absolutely disgusting, irrational, dangerious, and naive behavior of those who advocate for change based upon emotional appeal and lofty rhetoric.
Read the Fountainhead Rusty, you’ll find that your argument is best expressed in the character of Ellsworth Toohey. You accuse me of the behavior of my enemies, suggest I should not respond, and then fail to take a stand yourself.
My favorite quote, that I think addresses your point - and the reason so many are getting emotionally worked up about this election without thinking it through - is from Ezra Taft Bensen when he said,
“One of our most serious problems is the inferiority complex which people feel when they are not informed and organized. They dare not make a decision on these vital issues. They let other people think for them. They stumble around in the middle of the road trying to avoid being “controversial,” and get hit by traffic going both ways. In this mighty struggle each of you has a part. Every person on the earth today chose the right side during the War in Heaven. Be on the right side now. Stand up and be counted.”
I firmly believe that good men and women, who agree in principle, can have passionate rational disagreements about strategy, technique, and implementation. That is what an election is. Strategy, technique, and implementation. So, you’ll find nothing in my argument suggesting that FreeCapitalists or others aren’t free to disagree without having some personality or character flaw, but I will not let that mean also that I remain silent when others defend their choices without rational argument and substitute instead personal and emotional attacks on those who do take a stand.
Rusty, take a stand. Get in the fight. It is a fight, it is real, and it does matter.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I spoke to both candidates and had many conversations with others that supported both of the men running for congress. After weeks of reflection and contemplation I have decided to vote for Mr. Cannon. When all is said and done I believe that Mr. Cannon has done more good than bad for Utah in the time he has been in office. As for Mr. Chaffetz I don’t believe that he would do any better than Mr. Cannon and he doesn’t have the momentum that will be needed in Washington to fight for Utah and our country. We don’t have the time to wait for Mr. Chaffetz to build his power base in Washington.
As for the critical posts and attacks on this article. High emotion and personal attacks seem to be the driving force behind most of them. What little is motioned that is related to the election today is presented as titles only with no time taken to present even the semblance of an argument. They all do little to sway me away form my currant position. Were Mr. Koerber endorsement was well thought out and presented with facts and he explained his personal opinion concisely and without any emotionally driven ranting.
Thank you Mr. Koerber for your efforts and time spent in sharing your opinion.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Rick, In reading a few of your posts you have said that Mr. Chaffetz craves power. Could you please explain your accusation? The only backing that I see you giving is because Mr. Chaffetz is running for office this time only. If that is so terrible then maybe you and I both lack love for political freedom because I am certainly not running for office I don’t recall hearing you running for office either.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Rick–great post. As noted in response to Jason Vaughn’s article on the 3rd district race, when I met Mr. Chaffetz, I felt similar to what you describe here. Having met him in a townhall setting, I walked in prepared to take his views with a grain of salt. He gave all the right answers, but created all the wrong feeling. To take a phrase from another important campaign, his answers felt like “Just Words”.
Without duplicating everything from the response to Jason Vaughn’s article, I find it interesting that Chaffetz’s game plan of forming alliances in Washington to further conservative causes started with the attempt to eliminate the likely best member of that team. Had Chaffetz run in the 2nd district, he could have marched arm-in-arm with one of the most effectively conservative congressmen in today’s house on Washington. Now, if he wins, he will be left with one less player for his team in a congress that is largely opposed to most of what he stands for. Good luck forming that team. Keeping Cannon at his side would also opened the doors to many useful existing relationships that would be terminated if Cannon were ousted.
To sum it up, when I met Chaffetz, something didn’t sit right. I couldn’t put my finger on it. Our conversations together and your comments here make it pretty clear. Thanks for your insight and for being willing to take a few bullets in the process.
Your Friend in all of this,
Matt.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Mr. Chaffetz craves power? I have been wanting to write about this for a while. …
Just listen to his ads. Listen to the words he has chosen to represent himself. He claims he will go to Congress and force colleagues to get something done. His ad campaign reveals to me that he believes he can go in there with his naive freshman ignorance and somehow force his hand in this issues he claims to care so deeply about. If that isn’t a quest for power, I don’t know what is.
I understand, Chaffetz wants to appear strong willed and determined, but the words he has chosen reveal a tyrant. You don’t need a private conversation to see that in him. Just listen to his ads.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Mr. Rick,
Yeah, okay. Fair enough. Good question. Why do I believe that Mr. Chaffetz “craves” power?
First, let me state up front that I don’t think it is some diabolical craving, nor do I think it is that uncommon (unfortunately). I believe that most of us are trained from an early age to see value in being the “head of the pack” or the “chief of the tribe” as the way to “make a difference.” This is dangerous thinking - and I could go into that more - but let me stay on your question directly.
I think Chaffetz crave power more than his actual interest in making a positive change in Washington as he suggest because…
1. Prior to this campaign there is no evidence, at least that I have seen and I’ve been looking, that Mr. Chaffetz believes a thing he says. I do not know of anything he has done to advocate for the causes that he now trumpets. This means to me that he thinks with more “power and influence” he can now fight the good fight. My observation however is that this is usually self-deception. People generally tend to stay on the course they are on when given more money , more power, more influence. People tend to say lots of things to get power, influence, money etc., but it is by observing their behavior patterns that you can tell more about what is really motivating someone.
2. When Jason was the Chief of Staff for Mr. Huntsman he was not the outspoken “Conservative” he is appearing to be today. He and his supporters are criticizing Mr. Cannon for not leading out, not speaking out, not trumpeting conservative values, but when Jason was in a position to do that - in a very direct way for Utah - he was almost invisible when it comes to taking a principled stand. This is another indication to me that he wants to win this election to get power, seeing is former position as one lacking power. However, I think even a basic rational inquiry into the situation would suggest that as the Gov’s Chief of Staff he had more political power than he had ever had before, and he is now on a path to obtain more.
3. When I asked Jason about his decision to go after Cannon’s seat rather than Matheson’s, his answer was revealing. He first suggested that he didn’t like the way Cannon was doing a number of things, but when I pressed him and asked, “Do you like the way Matheson is doing things better?” He finally answered no, and admitted that the pivotal decision was that Cannon was beatable and Matheson was not. Or to put the point very directly, if Jason wanted to get into high elected office, defeating Cannon was his best chance. Notice the priority was not success on some issue or defending some principle - it was on getting power. Nothing is wrong with this, per se, except when packaged with what I’ve already observed. Somehow there seems to be this mentality that a person isn’t expected to stand up for freedom until and unless he is in high office. I think this is a major part of the problem facing America today and I think many otherwise good men and women in leadership positions are self-deceived as a result. I think I myself was deceived for a large part of my life, getting caught up in this very pattern of thought.
4. Jason suggests that he feels like the Republican Party has to clean house before it can get strength in Washington. But notice, he is not trying to help clean house - he is trying to replace a Republican. That is a strange notion of cleaning house. Meaning, for example, when Gov Huntsman wanted to clean house, he brought in a new Chief of Staff - getting rid of Jason. I suggest that the better way to help Republicans in Utah would have been to work with Congressman Cannon and even become his Chief Policy analysts, or Chief of Staff etc. This is a subtle issue and hard to see, but it is VERY important. THE MOST POWERFUL MEN IN POLITICS are not usually THE ONES who get ELECTED. I think a lot of Utahans have figured this out but have not applied this. It works both ways. First, those doing the most damage to America are usually the ones influencing elected officials. Second, those who can do MUCH GOOD for America can do it by WORKING WITH elected officials. I think, for example, that I have had an impact on politics in Utah and in America (small though it may be) in a much more powerful way over the past few years than I would have been able to accomplish if I limited myself to trying to get elected.
5. When Jason was a democrat, leading students at BYU and advocating in a leadership capacity for Michael Dukakis he had the same gifts and talents he has now (though I admit they are more refined) and he did not hesitate to use them for a very progressive socialist minded candidate. While I can certainly understand conversion - having myself been in the BOC most of my life - when asking Jason about his conversation to conservatism, or to the principles of freedom and how he views that past experience I WAS NOT CONVINCED AT ALL THAT his personal PHILOSOPHICAL understanding was grounded in principle. I think he is a shrewd strategist, who is now using a message to win over my friends (and I mean my actual friends) in the BOC who are so patriotic that they are missing the boat (again you’ll have to read my BOC essay). In my own judgement of his answers to my very honest questions - he struck me as a person who wanted power within the REPUBLICAN TRIBE more than he wanted to advocate a principle based liberty agenda. This is why it was such a big deal to me when he answered that he thought this campaign was a “one shot” opportunity. If he loses, in his mind, its on to other things. This motive seems to be victory at all costs - instead of victory at all costs (with the built in caveat of fundamental principles such as the 13 Principles of Prosperity) or even the more basic articulation of principles in the Declaration.
5. Finally, I think Jason craves power because in my interviews with his former associates (and I have interviewed about a half dozen) in the Utah Governors office and elected officials with whom he worked closely, the common story to my face has been almost the exact same. Recently, a former colleague of his said point blank, “Jason is known as a person who says what he has to say to get what he wants, and what he wants is power. Once Huntsman figured this out, it was time for Jason to go.” This story by itself wouldn’t sway me, but in context of the other four reasons I’ve given it makes sense.
So, that’s why I think Jason craves power more than a principled agenda for freedom and prosperity.
Now, let me be clear. I am not suggesting it is wrong to want to get elected. I am also not suggesting that it is wrong to have a strategy for acquiring more political power. What I am saying is that it is part of a package deal.
In the Chafftez situation, I suggest - no, I’ll even use the word prophecy, that unless and until Jason changes the way he is thinking (and I am hoping that he will, which was my motivation for the ‘maybe some day I’ll be a Chaffetz supporter comment’) he will be a bigger part of the problem.
Because principles govern, at best what I see coming if Chaffetz wins today, is a very articulate, outspoken proponent of the “right message” who will accomplish so very little that his candidacy will be another excuse for people to give up hope - saying to themselves well if Chaffetz didn’t get it done, I give up. Or even worse, thinking to themselves that hte problem is that we still don’t ahve the right people in Washington. When the reality is that no matter who we send to Washington right now - our country is headed towards disaster - and the reason is because we think its about who we elect, rather than questioning our own ideas. By pointing out Jason’s errors I am attempting to point out that the IDEAS of a person are more important than their ability to DELIVER A MESSAGE. And, while both gifts are important, in order to SAVE THIS COUNTRY, we should be ever more vigilant about a persons ideas.
As I have said many times before, HAVING THE RIGHT MESSAGE is only half the battle and OFTEN having the right message without the right IDEAS related to power and political philosophy can be more dangerous than being an inarticulate principled leader.
I know Chris Cannon personally. I know what he knows about freedom and liberty. I have talked with him in detail about the roots of the American Revolution and the ancient principles of prosperity. I know he understands socialism - and even more importantly - the fight against very real threats in the form of very real people in Washington D.C. I have asked him in detail about everything from the Patriot Act, CAFTA, and the laundry list of “hot button” issues that my Patriotic Conservative friends seem so dismayed about and I am confident that I understand his strategy and his agenda. I do disagree with him about a few strategic decisions. I do disagree with him about a number of application based issues. But I agree with him in principle. When comparing him to Chaffetz it is like comparing an NFL quarterback to a sports announcer. The announcer might be able to better “communicate” the problems on the field, but if I want to win games I want to spend my time working with the quarterback. Now, if I could get “both” in the same guy - great. But, if I must choose, I choose the quarterback, even if I’m losing games - because I know the ultimate path to victory.
Finally, let me again say, I have actually come to like Jason. I think he has problems as a candidate, that are more serious than Cannon’s. I do not believe they are insurmountable, but I believe they are serious.
I have serious concerns and reservations about a person who thinks that the secret to “saving the world” is getting more power. I think Jason could be the worst kind of “Benevolent Tyrant” if he does not correct his ideas.
Unfortunately I don’t see him doing what that takes - reading, studying, grappling at the fundamental level of the battle for freedom. I wish he would because with his gifts, he could indeed become a good leader. But, he is not there. He reminds me of President Bush. I think President Bush convinced Republicans that he had the right “answers” and got elected. But when a crises came - he didn’t have deep principled convictions about simple liberty based concepts such as due process, equal protection, individual liberty, etc.
Despite his rhetoric, this is my concern about Mr. Chaffetz. Thanks for asking.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I have received a few emails where the person responding to this article did not post here. One is particularly interesting, so I thought I’d post the comment and my response here. Out of respect I will not identify the person sending the comment -
He Writes: You are a good debater, Rick, and you present your points well, as flawed as the positions you take are. You miss the forest through the trees and this is a good example. Chaffetz’s harder stand is essentially standing up for rule of law, where Cannon actively supports illegals through amnesty programs (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=794644), distinguishing classes of criminals as good and bad (http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_4265348).
Essentially, it’s not just the vote. It’s the consistent actions against the rule of law in regards to this issue that is so disgusting.
Chaffetz, while lacking a specific plan, at least intends on using the position to speak for the rule of law. And that is, frankly, the better of the two positions.
MY RESPONSE:
In this case, the rule of law is frustrated by a bureaucratic system that makes adherence impossible. Additionally, you are making a philosophical mistake. The law does not determine what is right, it just determines what is legal. There are indeed different classes of criminals. There are those who have done no WRONG but have indeed broken the law. There are those who have both done wrong and broken the law. This is important. When someone has done wrong - they are a different category of criminal then a person who has simply violated the law.
This is the beginning of the American Revolution when Jefferson penned that men have certain “rights” granted by GOD not by government. The laws can be judged as good or bad -based upon their consistency with the more fundamental truths or principles of nature and natures God.
Regarding your comparison of Chaffetz and Cannon… I challenge you to answer the following…
1. If someone is here illegally, how should we find them?
2. Once we find them, how should we resolve the problem?
3. In resolving the problem should we treat all “illegals” equally?
These three questions illustrate the problem. Jason doesn’t answer #1 and #2 but insists upon answering #3 in the affirmative. Not one policy maker who has any national credibility agrees with him. Even worse, it is illogical to try and demand assent to an affirmative answer on #3 without answering #1 and #2. When Chaffetz says treat all illegals equally, the ones we find who have committed murder and the ones we find who have done no other wrong - and have voluntarily identified themselves - he is pandering to get your vote. First, when pressed he caves on this position. Second, he wants to have an intermediate step between identification and deportation - this is NO different than any other plan that so many call “amnesty.” While NO one that I know including Cannon is advocating a blanket amnesty, some are suggesting there are other remedies for breaking the law (being here illegally) then having to be deported. You and I might disagree about this, but in principle… my final question for you is this -
Why is deportation the only acceptable remedy for violating immigration or naturalization laws?
I appreciate your thoughts -
June 24th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I am new to the area so I really do not have a dog in this fight however I would like to offer a couple of observations.
1) “Comment by Rick on 24 June 2008:
Rick, In reading a few of your posts you have said that Mr. Chaffetz craves power. Could you please explain your accusation? The only backing that I see you giving is because Mr. Chaffetz is running for office this time only. If that is so terrible then maybe you and I both lack love for political freedom because I am certainly not running for office I don’t recall hearing you running for office either.”
Rick - I come from Minnesota where it is darned difficult (unless you are fortunate to live in the “right” district) for a Republican to win elected office the first or even second time out. My former Congressman (very Conservative John Kline) ran for the seat three times before finally getting elected. If you are really passionate about making the changes that need to be made, then you do not run a “one time shot”. You continue to plead your case to the people and if it resonates with them, you will win - but not always on the first shot. Also, not everyone has the skill set to be a politician. I will admit that I am one of them. I do not have the temperamental control (although I am working on it)to deal with some of the slings and arrows that come your way when you are an elected official.
2) to JT - when you make allegations (so and so has run a slimy campaign) you really should back those allegations up with some sort of example of “slime”. Slime is in the eye of the beholder. The Kerry Campaign (for example) thought that the comments of the Swift Boat Vets were particularly slimy. However, were they? After all - these vets were simply recounting their version of John Kerry’s time in service. Could the “slime” you perceived have been something similar? Without an example I have no way to know if it was real or imagined. How are you going to win my vote (if I were an undecided voter)?
LL
July 10th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Rick,
I realize this is all a moot point now that Jason has won the election and you are now throwing your support behind him, but since you threw down the gauntlet daring anyone to be able to answer “these questions three” I feel somewhat obliged for the purpose of educating you and your readers.
1. If someone is here illegally, how should we find them?
2. Once we find them, how should we resolve the problem?
3. In resolving the problem should we treat all “illegals” equally?
Even before his resounding defeat of Cannon, he was aware of and referred to E-Verify as a potentially effective tool to locate illegals. Even without E-Verify, the IRS as well as state taxing organizations have had names and addresses of every single illegal alien who works using false papers. One of the first things all employees are required to do is fill out a W-4, including their SS number (real or “borrowed”), Name, and Address along with their signature. Each taxing agency that receives this information has the capability in their database to parse out information which indicates a false use of a duplicate tax id. Each false entry is given it’s own individual record while the true tax id owner is identified as legitimate. Now you might ask, “why then does the IRS and other state taxing agencies not use this information to deport illegals. This, my friend is where Mr. Cannon and his cohorts have failed us.
La Raza is a powerful lobby, and they “own” several of our Congressmen and Senators, Mr. Cannon among them. La Raza has specifically lobbied against any legislation which supports enforcement of our “Rule of Law” and they have the financial backing of several well-known corporations who benefit greatly from the cheap labor the illegals provide them. See http://www.ourcaucus.com/Article4.html for more information on this subject. In the end, the IRS is collecting tax revenue from the illegal aliens through their phony tax IDs and with pressure from the Congressman who have bought and paid for by La Raza, they really don’t find a compelling reason to turn over information that hasn’t been asked for. So finding them really is the easiest part of the equation.
Your second question is also answered by Jason Chaffetz, and quite frankly I’m really quite surprised that someone who touts “turning their brain on,” waking up and paying attention, was not aware that Jason had indeed addressed questions one and two in a perfectly acceptable manner long before now. The solution Jason proposes is to notify all illegal aliens (via the information they provided to the tax agencies) that they have a fixed period of time to come forward and sign up for the voluntary deportation program which will then allow them to stay in the country working legally on a temporary permit while the deportation machine (administrative paperwork, transportation, law enforcement members, etc.) all work together to remove illegals from our country in an orderly, peaceful way. Those who do not come forward voluntarily? Well, we still have their name and address–even if they move, they have to update their W-4 information on an annual basis, so eventually we’ll catch up to them and send them to an internment camp (the tent prisons Jason has made mention of, patterned after the ones set up by Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona) while awaiting deportation. No more catch and release that Cannon supported. No more Amnesty. Just rule of law, which those we’ve elected to represent us SHOULD have been supporting and following all along instead of letting their greed get in the way. For a little bit more background as to why this is important, watch the following video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069
We already agree that Jason has answered the third question, so I won’t get into that. I do hope that I have provided sufficient data for you to absorb so that you don’t accuse me (as you did several others) of abandoning logic and reason as I make these points on Jason’s behalf.
I will admit that I was quite concerned when I read your endorsement of Cannon, that you were endorsing him for political expediency, because from what I’ve read and heard from you, it appears that you do indeed strongly support the US Constitution and the enforcement of the rule of law. Chris Cannon does not, in spite of his superficial platitudes to the contrary, his acceptance of moneys from certain groups, combined with his voting record (which is indeed different than what he tells his constituents that it is - see http://www.govtrack.us) indicates to me that he does not, nor has he for the last eight to ten years in Congress (I’ll give him a free pass for his first two to four years), supported the rule of law. Thanks for listening.
MB
September 30th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Okay, so Chris Cannon knows who Ayn Rand is, so he must be a good guy, right?…just so you know, Chris Cannon was one of the republicans who voted YES on the socialistic bailout yesterday…
Glad to know all that Ayn Rand stuff sunk in…NOT!!