Candidate Q&A

We’re a half year away from mid-term primaries. There’s a November election coming up, but it will consist mainly of small races and issues, like school boards and bond proposals. So why talk about elections now? Because there’s time now to consider principles, so we can prepare before there’s pressure and heightened emotion.

We’re already hearing from judge candidates at all of our Tea Party meetings. We live in a decidedly conservative area of red-state Texas. Nobody’s going to get elected around here by announcing they’re influenced by liberal/progressive ideology. And it is an unfortunate characteristic of politicians that they seek approval, which is likely to translate to votes, which is what gives them power. So, while we do indeed see a number of sincerely principled, effective candidates, we also encounter some who just try to convince us they’re one of us.

So, well ahead of decision time, I thought I’d list a few questions that might reveal what a candidate truly believes, so you can be a better informed voter.

We’ll start with judges. They talk about their experience (often impressive), their families and character. And they assure us they’ve been active in local GOP politics for a long time. But among these are a number we haven’t seen at district or state GOP conventions, or at our Tea Party meetings, until they became a candidate. This doesn’t necessarily mean they haven’t been active and long-time principled. But how do we know?

A friend, active in party politics, suggested asking about their voting record, so I think I’m going to start asking this: Who did you vote for in the past two presidential and governor races—both primaries and November elections? What was your reasoning for those votes? And how do you feel about those votes now?

A vote for Obama in 2008 might not be a deal breaker, depending on the reasoning—even though those of us paying attention knew what a disaster he would be and were not taken in by the ridiculous hope-and-change blather. But they’d better be able to explain articulately what they were hoping to accomplish with that vote (“It was historic” is simply racist; preventing John McCain from being president might be an acceptable answer). And they had better be very clear at this point what a mistake an Obama vote was.

A vote for Obama in 2010 would absolutely be a deal breaker. Unawareness of just how conservative and effective Romney was might be understandable, considering the negative lying press in the pocket of the Obama campaign, but that sure wouldn’t be a plus for someone who’s trying to convince us of their discernment and wise judgment.

I would ask about primaries for governor because (besides verifying that the candidate voted in the GOP primary) it gives an idea of ideology. Not everyone loves Governor Perry, but he has done a great deal of good. If the candidate supported a Perry opponent, for example, we’d need to have an explanation much deeper than, “I just thought he/she would make a good governor.”

When we’re looking at legislative and executive offices—governor, state representatives and senators and other state offices, as well as US representatives and senators, we can probably ask some questions provided by the Spherical Model concepts on politics (limited to the proper role of government), economics (free enterprise), and civilization (support for religious freedom and strong families).

Political Sphere

·        What do you believe is the proper role of government, and what are the limits?

·        Do you have favorite portions of the US Constitution, and/or any portions that you think ought to be changed, clarified, or improved?

·        When the US Supreme Court makes a ruling that you believe is at odds with the Constitution, what do you think the executive and/or legislative branches should do in response to the ruling?

·        What do you believe is the proper balance between public safety and individual freedom, and what do you believe government needs to do to reach that balance?

·        Who are your favorite examples of a good president—since 1900—and what about them do you admire?

·        How do you define extremists, and what views do you think are examples of extreme?

Economic Sphere

·        What do you believe is the optimum percentage of GNP that should be taken in taxes?

·        What do you believe is the government’s role in contributing to economic health? For example, if there is a sudden recession (as we were hit with in 2008), how should government react?

·        What do you believe is government’s role in the distribution of income discrepancy between the poor and the wealthy?

·        What do you believe should be government’s role in charitable help to the poor and suffering?

·        What do you believe are the purposes and limits of the commerce clause of the Constitution?

·        What do you believe is the role of the Federal Reserve, and how/whether it is benefiting the economy?

Civilization Sphere

·        What do you believe about the connection between moral values and the law?

·        Which institution is most responsible for raising a generation that will benefit society, and why: schools, government, churches, nonprofit organizations, sports teams, families?

·        Which constituency’s desires is public education best accountable to, and why: US government, state government, local government, teachers, students, parents/taxpayers?

·        What do you believe should be government’s role in homeschooling, private schools, charter schools, and school choice?

·        What do you think is government’s role in defining marriage, and why? 

Additionally, asking about a few specific issues might be helpful:

·        What are your feelings concerning Obamacare, and what do you think should be done?

·        What do you believe are the motivations of people who support traditional (man/woman) marriage and family?

·        What are your beliefs about border security and immigration?

·        What do you believe is the proper role of government concerning climate?

·        What do you see as the US role in the world, and what is your view of the UN?

·        What are your opinions on national debt, national deficit, tax increases and/or cuts, and national budget? 

 

I’m sure this list isn’t exhaustive. But it’s a start. Good luck getting a candidate to answer even a few. Maybe if we divide up the list, and each ask a question or two to every candidate, we’ll be able to share responses. Because, truly, we need the best candidates we can possibly get, before any more damage is done.

Where to Get Accurate Picture?

I’m asking this question: how can we find out the truth about candidates in order to make an informed choice? On Thursday I listed some questions to ask about presidential candidates, and I’m continually in the process of asking those about the current crop. In the meantime, I’m looking at the frustrating situation of campaign and media misinformation. 

Here’s an example—not to defend this particular candidate, but to show the difficulty of learning the truth. Last week in a townhall meeting, candidate Mitt Romney was asked his position on global warming. Maybe the person asking the question sincerely wanted to know his stance. Or it might have been a gotcha question. Romney has a fuller statement on his environmental stance and policy in his book No Apologies, which I haven’t yet read. 

I did, however, read Hugh Hewitt’s biography of Romney four years ago, and I have read just about every major speech Romney has written. Last time around, when it was down to Romney, McCain, and Huckabee, Romney was, in my opinion, far and away the best candidate of that crowd for reasons I could give, but won’t right now. I missed the opportunity to attend his notable “Faith” speech in December 2007; a friend got hold of tickets the night before and asked me to go with her. But I couldn’t make the trip and return in time for commitments I had already made. This was one of the times I regretted my inability to be more flexible. But I did read the speech, several times, and those who rave about Obama’s oratory skill ought to read that speech to be better schooled. 

Up till now I have not spent much time looking at his environmental policy; it just wasn’t top on the list of things that had come up. So I was disappointed when I heard that he’d said, according to news sources, that he believes in global warming—with the implication that he was like all those liberals using global warming as an excuse to place more government controls on our lives. However, almost as soon as I heard the news, someone posted a comment on facebook that he was taken out of context. 

I’ve waited a few days, but I decided finally to get the original answer from Romney, which is still available online (imbedded in this piece). Here’s what he said: 

I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world is getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. 

I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know there’ve been periods of greater head and warmth than in the past, but I believe we contribute to that. And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants, of greenhouse gases, that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you’re seeing. 

So far, with only that, you could assume he’s a follower of Al Gore. But he didn’t stop there. He talked at length about being against cap and trade-type schemes and carbon taxes that only harm the economy. And while he likes alternative renewable energies, he sees the immediate need to drill for oil and natural gas here in the US, not only as a way to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil, but as absolutely essential for our economy. So, when you hear the whole context, you hear him more closely resembling Sarah Palin’s energy policy than Al Gore’s. 

Was he just trying to cover all the bases? I don’t think so. According to one source I read, he was originally signed on with a cap-and-trade-like compact, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) as governor of Massachusetts. The author thought that was damning, but Romney pulled Massachusetts out of that plan in 2005—because it did not have adequate economic safeguards. In other words, he has a long and consistent record of being in favor of developing alternative energy source, but absolutely not to the detriment of the economy, which currently depends on fossil fuels. [Note: Massachusetts had to suffer for that plan anyway, when Romney’s Democrat successor, Duval Patrick, signed on to it i 2007.] 

As I did an online search to find out for myself, I found that every source that talked about this townhall “gaffe” assumed he had said something disqualifying as a conservative candidate. While we may disagree about whether global warming is indeed happening and is at all human caused, I have to admit that there are significant sources out there who believe it—and it takes something of a rebel (which sometimes I am) to insist that the so-called experts are wrong. So if he believes a great many experts, as opposed to a few (and he likely has read a fair amount, because he does that), I can hardly disqualify him for that. But here we have someone who not only wants more renewable energy to be developed—again, something I’m not against—but at the same time insists on using our available resources and protecting our economy. That’s what I want; that is not disqualifying. 

But look how much effort it took to learn what his policy actually is. And I only did the search because I had prior knowledge that led me to believe it was worth exploring beyond the media’s—and also conservative pundits’—assessment of his policy based on a partial quote. 

I know enough, in his case, to know that he has also been quite consistent on some of the other things he has been called a flip-flopper for. Abortion policy is one: he has always been against abortion as an unjust evil against the unborn. There is no change there. But back a decade or so, he chose not to make it a signature issue. He said, in a Democrat-run state, that since Roe v. Wade was the settled position, he would not go against the law, nor did he see it as his obligation to try to fix it as an elected governor handling so many issues. Here is the change: he saw that the issue was so egregiously wrong that he decided that as an elected official he would look for ways to change the situation if he could. It’s a slight and subtle change—in policy, not in belief. And I’m only aware of it because I’ve looked at him a good deal. 

Still, I don’t know that I know him well enough to give an unqualified endorsement. And I’m concerned because I know so little about the rest of the field. How do I get accurate information enough? One consolation is that absolutely everybody in the field would be a huge improvement over the Obamanation currently in the White House. But, really, I want to know who would really be the best. And at this point, all I know for sure is that the media—and those who believe the media stories—are making a concerted effort to keep me from knowing the truth that is essential to know.