HIGHLAND, UT | 7 June 2008 | Hillary Clinton at least bought a house in New York and pretended to set up residency so she could legally and legitimately represent that state in the Senate. The face of Utah politics in 2008 has a man running for Congress in one district and living in another. He can’t even vote for himself, yet he plans to somehow represent a constituency remote from himself?

I had an email conversation with a friend today in which I challenged this friend’s premise that Chaffetz is the best candidate for that seat. The premise was:

Chaffetz is worthy to win based strictly on his merits—not his money, his name or his political connections.

This caused me to reflect for a moment on what that actually means.

What is in a name?A name, in this context, is a reputation. A name becomes either good or bad based upon the character of the person carrying that name. In a word, a name is a merit. The Cannon family has spent generations building up a good name, most of it based upon the merits of good people and wise people, the very type of person we claim to be looking for. Chaffetz? What is in his name? He is a veritable nobody. No one of significance can look at his name and say, “Yes, now there’s a man of wisdom and goodness.”

Money—what is the responsibility of Congress? First is the power of the purse. Constitutionally, all monetary bills start in the House of Representatives. Who better to have in Congress than someone who indicates with his own life that he understands the proper management of money? I don’t understand why we would want to elect someone to this office whose life is an indication that they do not understand money.

Now, that being said, what of Jason Chaffetz’ money? He lives in Alpine (NOT in District 3, by the way) and if the house on the video is his house, which I have no reason to believe otherwise, there is a pretty good indication that he has money. In remaining true to my statement above, this is a plus to Chaffetz. However, if he is running a campaign on the premise that he is pretending not to be a person of means, then this video has revealed him to be a hypocrite in this matter. I don’t know if this is one of his premises or if it was simply one of the premises you choose in determining a suitable candidate, so please help me understand that.

Political Connections—what do you know about either candidates’ political connections? Here is what I know. Cannon has been active in politics for many years. He comes from a family who cares deeply about the political situation in the state and the nation, probably also on the more important local levels as well. Because of his many years of activity and experience, I am sure he has developed camaraderie with other politically active people both in and out of the party, as well as in Utah and in Washington. He is a leader in Congress as well as a leader in state politics. His political connections should be applauded rather than denigrated.

If, however, you believe a person should not have political connections in order to serve in this position, let’s evaluate Chaffetz’ possible political connections. He served as Governor Huntsman’s chief of staff for a period of time. This is not a position a person gets appointed to without connections. The fact that he served in this position is indication that he has some really good connections. So, if you are looking for someone who has no connections then Chaffetz is not your man. You were better to have picked one of the lesser known candidates who were able only to generate a dozen votes at convention and can’t figure out why they don’t get elected. It is because they have absolutely no political connection. I just don’t think it is warrant-able to use connectivity or non-connectivity alone as a premise for getting someone elected. Moreover, again, a person’s political connections is good indication of his/her merits.

Merits—What are merits if they are not somehow grounded in a person’s ability to create and maintain a good name, perform business in such a way as to successfully obtain money and to manage it effectively to keep it for a good amount of time, and the ability to work well with other people in a way that he can create political connections? These are all manifestations of a person’s merits. But there is one more, the merit I believe you are wanting to base electability on, and that is the person’s track record. Chris Cannon has an amazing track record in the House of Representatives. He has 100% voting record. He is not back there screwing around on the tax payer’s dime. He has a 96% approval record on the emigration question. You will not find a greater advocate for the cause of freedom and the protection of the constitution. He has nearly no earmarks or pork. On the websites I know of that report such things, he has $0 earmarked. Those merits sound pretty good.

What exactly are Jason Chaffetz’ merits? Here is all I know. He was a leader of the campus Democrats while attending BYU. (Don’t know what merit that is either way since most college students are ignorantly liberal, knowing very little about the world.) He served briefly as Gov. Huntsman’s chief of staff, a bureaucratic position rather than an elected one. I don’t know what other political activities he has ever participated in. His campaign website says nothing of his experience, which leads me to believe he has none. To say nothing of his desires to truly serve his fellow citizens whether he is elected or not. He speaks very well and has memorized all the slick talking points quite nicely, which to me is a sign to be cautious of his real intent, many very dangerous people in history have possessed the slick ability to speak eloquently—smooth as oil as one prominent 19th century figure put it.

Conclusion

The wisdom of our Founders created a brand new style of government, one that took on the strengths of many different types throughout the ages. One of the greatest strengths was the separation of powers between the states and the people. Congress uniquely represented both, originally. The Senate, chosen by each state’s legislatures was to represent the states, not the people. The Seventeenth Amendment turned the Senate into a House of Representatives at large. The House of Representatives has always been the people’s chamber. The Constitution directs that Reps are elected ‘by the people of the several states.’ In 1842, Congress stipulated that members should represent certain districts of their given states rather than be at large representatives. This was a wise move, as the at-large system was becoming chaotic and confusing. Even the Founders expressed their wisdom on this matter. George Mason:

The requisites in actual representation are that the representatives should sympathize with their constituents; should think as they think, and feel as they feel; and that for these purposes should even be residents among them.

In this day when we complain long and loud that politicians are out of touch with their constituents, don’t you think it most prudent to give those constituents at least a fighting chance at the onset by electing the candidate who lives among them? Even Hillary saw the prudence in that!