I wanted to share my experience with you, since frankly I believe there is a lot of confusion or misunderstanding about caucuses.  I hope you’ll see my perspective and understand more about this process.

First, I apologize that I don’t have any pictures.  In my haste to get all the materials together after work, plus my focus in preparing a five-minute stump speech for Rick Perry, I forgot to bring my camera.  I know I like to see posts with pictures and I’m sorry I don’t have any to share.  In fact I am most sorry because I was so proud of my 4-year-old son who was there with my wife and he was running back and forth a lot of the night (with his Rick Perry sticker displayed proudly) “helping dad with the meeting.”  That was fantastic.

The town where my precinct caucus was held has a population of about 1700, and including a lot of rural area around it, it is just as large by GOP registrations as the county seat, which is its own precinct and has a population of 2700.

Each precinct generally holds its own caucus, although some (usually densely populated) counties do choose to hold county-wide forums in one spot where they break out at the end into their respective precincts to vote.  I heard that one precinct was actually holding a dinner before the caucus and inviting candidates or proxies to speak then, and then have the caucus itself at 7pm, the normally scheduled time.  The County Central Committee organizes and pays for any fees to reserve locations to hold the caucuses, and identifies the temporary chair and secretary who will actually run the event.  Sometimes the caucus is not in the same location that people normally go to vote in elections.  In my precinct, it was the same as our normal voting location.

Anyway my role for the night was caucus chairman, plus whatever I could do in parallel as a volunteer precinct chairman for Rick Perry.  I showed up at about 5:45pm to start setting up, but thankfully our caucus secretary and her husband were there earlier and had set up chairs (about 100), the lectern and a registration table.  To my pleasant surprise, a volunteer from the Perry campaign had already showed up and posted about eight Rick Perry yard signs out in front of the hall and set up a table inside full of promotional materials.  He was a nice man from rural Texas who actually knew the Perry family.  He was there with his ~10-year-old daughter.  They had flown into Des Moines Sunday night separately with 2 other family members and had initially been told they would man a precinct in Winterset, IA.  When the Perry organization realized they had 2 rental cars between them, they split them up and sent him to our small community instead – about a 2-hour drive from Des Moines.  They did get some sight-seeing in around Winterset on Monday, even though it was super windy and cold!  January in Iowa.

I heard afterward that at least the 3 largest precincts (out of 7 total in our county) had someone from the Perry campaign represented at their caucus.  I know at least 2 more had volunteers slated to speak for Perry, so I was very proud of the Perry organization.  The Perry Strike Force was fantastic.

One local volunteer showed up to put up a table for Rick Santorum.  The county chair for Michele Bachmann had put out some stickers and leaflets for her campaign, but his caucus was in another precinct.  No other presence was there for the other campaigns in my precinct.

REGISTRATION

From 6:30-7pm we had a steady line checking in, so we weren’t able to start the caucus until 7:10pm.  The official scheduled start was 7pm.  We had an official roll of all registered Republicans in our precinct, although that was as of roughly November 15^th, 2011.  If someone was not on the roll (either by mistake, voter at the wrong precinct, or a new voter) they were required to fill out a new registration form (the same form that is always used in Iowa) to register as a Republican in the State of Iowa.  We had several new voter registrations, at least one mix-up, and a few that were left off the roll for some reason.  Once a voter was checked in they received a ballot.  Our ballots were pre-printed and had check boxes for Bachmann, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Romney, Santorum, plus a write-in blank.  A lot of people showed up early to talk in person to the campaign representatives.

The first order of business is for the temporary chair (myself) to elect the permanent chair and the permanent secretary for the caucus.  We follow Robert’s Rules of Order for all procedures of the meeting.  In the caucus training I attended, we were told to expect that unless the temp chair or secretary expressly says they do not want to be the permanent one, expect to be permanent!  That certainly held true for our caucus.

Before we did that, we gave a quick slot for state legislators to speak, since for 2012 redistricting we have two existing legislators competing with each other – and they were trying to hit more than one precinct that night.  So two representatives for one State Rep. got up and spoke for about 5 minutes – the young lady who spoke was a teenager, so that was wonderful.  The other State Rep. showed up to our caucus just as we were adjourning (after visiting 2 other precincts) and personally worked the crowd that remained.

PRESIDENTIAL FORUM AND POLL

After formally getting elected permanent chair and electing the permanent secretary, I opened the floor to candidate representatives to speak.  Each candidate could have one representative speak for up to 5 minutes.  No disruptions are permitted.  I ran down the ballot and the first person to draw interest was a young person for Ron Paul, who I am sure didn’t plan on speaking that night until that moment.  He rambled a lot, but when he was finished everyone applauded respectfully.  Next was Perry, and I fully intended to speak, but instead I deferred to the man who had flown in from Texas.  He gave a very nice speech for AT LEAST five minutes talking about his experience with Rick Perry’s family, Perry’s background, and with Rick Perry as his Governor.  Lastly a local person spoke for Rick Santorum.  No other speeches were offered.

We gathered the secret ballots (by this time it was about 7:35pm) and began counting them.  Each campaign is allowed to have one person observe the counting, but really it’s out in the open on a table so everyone can watch.

If memory serves we had 102 total votes, with Rick Santorum at 41, Rick Perry at 22, Mitt Romney 16, I believe Ron Paul had 12, Newt Gingrich 9, and Michele Bachmann 2.  I read out the results from the lectern, and a smattering of attendees left after that.  Several people had expressed they also had a youth basketball game to attend that night, so that was completely fine.  Most of them stayed to the end so I was pleased with that.

ALL THE REST

The last orders of business: we elected 2 representatives to the County Central Committee, asked for volunteers to be delegates to the County Convention, and finally took proposals for resolutions to be part of the Platform for our county.  Anyone can propose a resolution, and those in attendance discuss the resolution and then vote on whether to accept them.  We had two proposals.  One was presented for the Iowa Firearms Coalition on amending the state Constitution for “constitutional carry” and it passed without objection.  The second was offered by a young man on behalf of the One campaign for diverting public resources to humanitarian purposes, particularly to fight AIDS.  The attendees were not too excited about using public resources in that fashion, and it was voted down.  I was sorry I didn’t get the chance to thank the young man afterward for at least coming to represent his cause in front of all these people.

And that was the end of the caucus.  We were done with the proceedings before 8pm.  I called in the results of the presidential poll to the recording center and spent quite some time (along with our caucus secretary) afterward signing up delegates to the County Convention, giving information about what the convention really is, and so forth.

CONCLUSIONS

A lot has been said about “why a caucus” and the one big benefit I observed is the opportunity to get into a room with a healthy number of Republicans in your community and participate in the political process.

Partially at the urging of ColdWarrior at RedState, and a pure desire to get involved and drive conservatism in the Republican Party, I’ve been attending our Central Committee meetings for the last 8 months and actively participating in their functions.  As an aside, being active and interested at that level was all it took for me to be given the gavel as a caucus temporary chair, and now to be formally elected as a Precinct Committee representative.

But my point is that in all the Central Committee meetings I have attended we have about 8-10 people who show up at every meeting, and I think the most I have seen at a meeting is 15.  We held a fundraiser in the fall for our whole county; we had Chuck Grassley, Steve King, all our local representatives plus representatives from any of the presidential campaigns that agreed to attend and give remarks – and I believe the turnout was around 60 people.  We had decent success at fundraising, but I was really hoping for double that attendance.  Our county has several thousand registered Republicans, and (thankfully) as a whole we vote roughly 60-65% GOP in statewide and national elections.  I know my experience in the lack of active participation in the party is not unique across our country.

So in my view, having the opportunity to have over a hundred Republicans and interested observers gathered in one room (and have this repeated in precincts all over our state) to actively talk about the role of government in our lives and participating in that process is a welcome event.  I don’t believe this kind of forum is something you could ever get from a primary system, even though I suspect you might get more total votes in a primary.

On open registrations – frankly I see both sides of the issue here. While I’d prefer that “just Republicans” pick our nominees (or the delegates if you prefer), we had several new voters decide that night to come and participate in our caucus.  Yesterday on the radio I heard the testimony of several people who previously identified as Independent or Democrat but finally decided that night to make the switch and come to a Republican caucus…not as Democrats, but to be Republicans.  I guess I almost liken it to a spiritual awakening – sometimes it takes a person right up until an actual event to hear the calling and step over that line and “become a Republican.”  Even though I appreciate the “purity” a closed registration system could afford, I see a lot of positive value in having an open-door process in our Republican Party.  I suspect some people are bound to abuse the system no matter what your rules are, so I believe having an open system is the best compromise.  I think, let’s get them registered as Republicans, and then we can work on making them understand conservatism in government.

Our caucus forum was purely democratic and I really enjoyed the experience.  However I do hope we won’t need to have another caucus with a true presidential poll for eight more years!

Cross-posted at BA Cyclone’s blog.

I have spent some time in 2011 working to advance conservative principles, and with respect to the Presidential election, advancing candidates who promote the ideas of conservatism.

In early spring, I was inspired by Herman Cain’s simple message of smaller, simpler government and bringing real-world solutions to Washington, D.C.  I resolved to join his early grassroots movement here in Iowa to promote his candidacy for President.

By early summer, Herman Cain’s campaign was sputtering with a severe lack of message control.  Sadly, it appeared that Herman Cain lacked either the political skill or the management qualities it required to adequately oversee a political campaign.

I found a new home for conservative activism with the candidacy of Michele Bachmann.  My family attended Michele’s campaign kickoff in Waterloo, Iowa and thoroughly enjoyed her clear message on the conservative view of government, and a warm personal style.  In August I agreed to volunteer for Michele Bachmann at the Iowa GOP Ames Straw Poll.  I wrote a little about that experience here.  It was exciting to spend that time on a beautiful day in Iowa, witness democracy in action among many conservative brethren, and have it end in “victory” late in the day.

Sadly, it was all downhill from there for Michele Bachmann’s campaign.  Increasingly she looked less presidential and simply not ready to mount a serious national campaign.  As Michele continued to roll out her conservative platform, I heard few specific ideas or proposals for changing the culture of government.  My interest was always to raise conservative voices, and Michele’s voice was disappointing.  I am glad to have Michele Bachmann serve in government, but I believe the office of President isn’t for her right now.

Between late September and early November, I didn’t have a particular home for my efforts.  I did spend more time for Herman Cain for a few weeks, but left again when the old habits of message control resurfaced.  As someone observed on Erick Erickson’s radio show, if a particular draw for Herman Cain is his skill in business management and the people he puts around him, how can I support him when the people around his campaign messaging appeared so inept?  I was relieved when Herman Cain finally suspended his campaign, because frankly it felt like someone was finally putting it out of our misery.

I spent several weeks researching and reflecting upon who I would finally support for the stretch run to the Iowa caucuses.  My criteria were simple:

• A correct, clear view of the relationship between government and people,
• A strong view of how the economy, and a civil society really works,
• A record of upholding these principles in public or private service,
• A clear ability to get elected, both the nomination and general election.

As you might imagine, every major candidate addresses these principles to varying degrees.  It has been lamented that there is “no perfect candidate” and while I suppose that is true, as I look back over elections at least through Ronald Reagan in 1980, I don’t think this is an honest standard with which to judge a candidate.  In some ways, even Ronald Reagan could not have fully met this standard of “perfection” in 1980.

So like everyone else I was left to consider each candidate on their merits, and assign my own weighting system upon how they stack up against the value system that I hold dear.

For the 2012 election, I support Governor Rick Perry.

Some might be surprised to see my support of Rick Perry, as this spring I wrote a highly critical post about Rick Perry’s bona fides on conservative principles.

One of my chief issues in that post was his decision to issue an executive order mandating a particular vaccine for young children.  In Rick Perry’s first days on the campaign trail, he flatly apologized for that mistake in judgment.  The entire text of that apology and my remarks can be found as an update at the end of that post.

Weighing all the candidates again, I found that Governor Rick Perry has the best balance of record and performance upon all the issues I described above.

Relationship between government and the people

Rick Perry has been a longtime advocate of federalism, state’s rights through the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, and republican government.  In Rick Perry’s campaign kickoff, he proclaimed that the virtue of his presidential campaign would be to “make the federal government as insignificant in your life as possible.”  This is unabashed conservatism.  It is a foundational principle of our nation’s founding and of the Republican Party that the government which governs least governs best.  Further, we maintain the government closest to the individual will always be most responsive to the needs and wishes of the individual.

If you listen to any speech or text from Rick Perry, you cannot walk away without hearing something about how government power comes from the people up, not from the government down.  Rights are not bestowed upon us by a central government, but rather each citizen in the United States is a sovereign individual who grants limited power to the government to ensure a civil society.  Rick Perry’s ideals are right on point.

Furthermore, Rick Perry is a rare politician who understands and keeps the word servant relevant to his role as a public servant.  That ideal can be seen right in his public apology for the executive order, and through to his idea that we should press for our legislative representatives to spend less time in Washington, D.C. and hopefully more time living within their districts under the laws that they create.

Rick Perry’s plan to end the Departments of Education, Energy, and Commerce and remand this spending and these responsibilities back to the several States is right on point in my book.

Strong view on economy and civil society

This is somewhat related to my first ideal, but more specific to economics and the principle of private property.

Rick Perry firmly and dependably professes a strong belief in the central government doing as little in the marketplace as possible to “pick winners and losers.”  I respect that he comes to Iowa and openly supports ending subsidies for corn ethanol (as much as a canard as that tends to be), but he does so by proclaiming that all such subsidies from the federal government should stop.  In the name of republican government, states should be free to subsidize a particular activity as they see fit, but the role of the federal government should begin and end with keeping the market open and free.  Wonderful.

Another example: Rick Perry plans to end or dramatically reduce the EPA and remand more of these responsibilities to the states.  Once again, I find this not to be red meat for conservatives but right on point in federalism.  While everyone values clean air and water, today’s version of the EPA is ridiculously anti-development.  We are no longer talking about the choice between development and clean air and water – we are talking about the law of diminishing returns.  The greeenpeace types in the EPA do not understand that economic prosperity is also a friend to environmental stewardship.  Poor people do not care for the environment.  There must be a better balance struck between the value of commerce and the value of environmental concerns – and I believe the best judgments can be made by the governments closest to their constituents.

As for the scoreboard, Rick Perry’s support for low taxes, reasonable regulations, a predictable civil litigation system and an educated workforce has produced a business climate consistently ranked among the best in the nation.  This is the definition of “good government” and we desperately need more of that in Washington, D.C.

A record of upholding conservative principles

One might say, “talk is cheap”.  It doesn’t take a lot of skill to stand in front of a camera or a group of people and say words that make you sound conservative.  Even Barack Obama can do that.

Rather we need someone who walks the conservative walk as much as they like to talk the conservative talk during an election campaign.

Rick Perry has never been confused about whether or not a central government can choose your medical care insurance better than you can.  I am certain you would never find Rick Perry on a couch with Nancy Pelosi, or confused about government’s role in “global warming” like Newt Gingrich.  I’m also certain you’d never find tape of Rick Perry proclaiming he is “very proud of his earmarks” and endorsing moderates and Washington elites over purebred conservatives, like Rick Santorum.

Rick Perry has led the charge in Texas to maintain limited, relatively small government.  The people of Texas and its business climate have flourished as a result.

Rick Perry has also been a staunch advocate of pro-life ideals.  One accomplishment along those lines is to cut state funding in Texas for Planned Parenthood.  No person in this race is more pro-life than Rick Perry.

Rick Perry is the only Texas governor to cut state spending since World War II. Today, the citizens of his state enjoy the second lowest government debt burden per capita in America.

Rick Perry’s plan to push for an amendment to the Constitution to limit federal spending to 18% of GDP (which correlates to a decades-long average of government revenue) along with several proposals to simplify the tax codes is dramatically pro-business, pro-growth, and conservative to the core.

A clear ability to get elected

To be frank, none of the above positions matter if the candidate ultimately cannot win the nomination, or even the election.  This can be one of the most contentious qualifications for supporting a candidate.  For some it might seem as reasonable pragmatism, yet for others it might seem like settling for less than your ideal candidate because of ‘what other people think’.

As a result each person applies this rule differently in their level of pragmatism.  I have a friend who I believe is a supporter of Mitt Romney primarily due to this principle.  I suspect a healthy portion of “Romney supporters” are in that camp primarily because they believe he is ‘most electable’ out of the bunch, for various reasons.

However I apply this reasoning to give the final award to Rick Perry, because unlike ALL the other candidates Rick Perry has a stellar record of winning elections and governing as a conservative.

Going back to Mitt Romney for comparison, it’s funny that he bears the brand of “most electable” when his record running for public office is FIVE wins in twenty-two tries.  Conversely, Rick Perry has not lost any of the races he’s entered for public office.  He has served Texas in the state legislature, Agricultural commissioner, Lieutenant Governor (separately elected from Governor in Texas), and finally winning the race for Governor three times.  While some might discount Perry’s record in “Republican-friendly Texas”, you must also take note that even the primary races for Governor were hotly contested.  In the most recent primary, Governor Perry defeated longtime Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (who had the clear backing of Washington-connected Republicans) to reclaim the Republican nomination.  Over and over through the public service career of Rick Perry, political pundits have discounted his electoral chances – but Rick Perry keeps winning elections.

Some might discount Rick Perry on the point of electability because he’s had his share of gaffes during the early debates.  Some even fear that he would lose the general election because they fear Perry’s ability to handle Barack Obama in a debate.  First – what could Barack Obama say in comparison to Rick Perry’s record of governing Texas to creating ONE MILLION net jobs?  If it were not for Rick Perry’s Texas, Barack Obama’s record on jobs would be even worse than it is today!  Since Barack Obama has become President, the total size of the American workforce has declined by millions of people as they have given up looking for work in Barack Obama’s economy.  The people and businesses who are willing to move – they move to Texas to find prosperity.  Economic freedom and liberty breed prosperity – and no candidate can sell that message better than Rick Perry, especially when he is on a stage with Barack Obama.  Finally, Rick Perry has shown terrific wherewithal in the the last several GOP debates – and I think “America’s jobs governor” standing on the stage alone with Barack Obama will make the choice clear and obvious.  This is a record that will sell itself, and Rick Perry has shown on the campaign trail and in office that he is absolutely qualified to sell this record convincingly to the American people.

Finally, as a longtime governor, Rick Perry has access to campaign resources and a healthy campaign structure that demonstrates he has a serious ability to mount a national campaign for President.  Rick Perry can win this thing and he already has the tools that it takes to get there.

RICK PERRY MEANS CONSERVATIVE RESULTS

Governing a country is not about being slick in a debate.  This is not American Idol – Presidential edition.  I want a candidate who will govern as a conservative, and not merely be the “chief negotiator” with the statists (Republican and Democrat) in Washington, D.C.  Many candidates claiming the conservative mantle, including Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, have their political knees buckle when the time comes to stick to conservative principles in tough situations.  I don’t want the next president to have a record of leaving conservatives at the altar to “get the sure deal” like Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum have done.  We need someone who will sell conservative principles and attract them to that position, as Ronald Reagan once did.

Rick Perry has a clear record of electoral and political achievement unlike any other candidate.  As a result, his political record is one of achieving conservative results.  While all the candidates in this race talk glowingly of their ideas to reshape Washington with their supposed conservative ideals, Rick Perry has been doing this very thing as Governor for the last 11 years in Texas.  While other candidates like to talk the conservative talk, Governor Rick Perry has walked the conservative walk in Texas.  Rick Perry knows what conservative government looks like, because he has been governing as a conservative.  No other candidate can claim this record like Rick Perry can.

For these reasons, I will caucus for Rick Perry on January 3rd.  Please join me!

Cross-posted at BA Cyclone’s blog.

Today we celebrate the reason for the season: God’s love for us all.

May God bless you and your family with peace and good tidings this Christmas season and all throughout the next year.

Also posted at BA Cyclone’s blog.

I can’t say I have watched all the coverage this week of the fiasco that has been Penn State University and their football program, or more appropriately the personnel within their football program.

I must say however that it saddens me, and even sickens me that thousands of students would riot in “support” of a football coach who allegedly had some (small) role in continuing this madness beyond when it should have stopped.

Now I won’t make the mistake of laying this whole episode at the feet of Joe Paterno. That would be ridiculous. Even if the allegations in the leaked stories are true, the unspeakable acts done to young boys are truly the responsibility of one person, and that is not a Paterno. Moreover, Paterno and others within the program allegedly did follow through with the “legal minimum” in reporting the incidents, and thus he and they are not criminally implicated in these allegations.

I can appreciate that Joe Paterno is not just your average football coach. His presence is truly legendary not just at Penn State, but in the sport of college football. The Paterno family’s legacy is interspersed throughout the University, not just within its football program. Many hundreds of young men owe thanks and gratitude for the positive impact that Joe Paterno has had in their lives.

What saddens me, however are the (possibly) dozens of young men whose lives are irreparably harmed because men who should know better, possibly including Joe Paterno did not forcefully speak out when given that chance.

What appears clear is that several men had the opportunity to end this horrific tale many years ago. For reasons only they can understand, they did not. These men who act as pillars of society could not find the courage, given the chance, to “do the right thing” and forcefully stop a colleague from unspeakably hurting young boys.

For needed perspective I’ll quote Carey Casey, director at the National Center for Fathering, who asked this question:

“Would their response have been different if the 10-year-old victim had been their son or grandson?”

As I watched thousands of young people wailing and gnashing their teeth (and flipping a media van) about the fate of an 84-year-old man who should have known better, I wondered what they would have thought if it was their brother who allegedly could thank Joe Paterno (among others) for not speaking out to protect these young boys?

As I watched Joe Paterno’s son speak a quick line to a camera after the football game on Saturday, seeming quite sad about his father’s fate, I could only hope to wonder who was all the more sad for all the children who had been needlessly hurt because Joe Paterno allegedly couldn’t bring himself to vigorously bring needed shame to a friend? Just what were authorities at Penn State supposed to do once the facts were known? Later, Jay Paterno rightly pointed the focus of his concern on the real victims of this evil – the boys.

• At a minimum, these young boys are emotionally scarred for life.
• Their fathers surely would like to have a few minutes alone with each “man” who could have forcefully spoken up, but did not.
• Their mothers must be weeping for the emotional damages done to their boy by a “man” who should have protected them, and by “men” who effectively protected him.
• Their brothers and sisters must feel ashamed and confused about what this all means and why their brother is so much different now…or maybe a lot of their family history now makes sense.
• The future wives of these young boys will certainly find some level of pain and suffering as these boys, now men try to find healthy and proper ways to express love and caring to their spouse in spite of their emotional scars.
• The children of these young men will have their relationship with their father altered in an unhealthy way as their father must deal with emotional obstacles that should not be there.

Again, I don’t lay all the responsibility, or even the majority for these unspeakable things at the feet of Joe Paterno, or anyone else save the person who actually committed the crimes. Allegedly, Joe Paterno and others at least did the legal minimum to report the crimes. But if all these allegations are true, it appears if Joe Paterno and others within the PSU Athletic Department had vigorously “done the right thing” rather than effectively protect a colleague, the network of damaged people I mentioned above would be smaller. For people in their positions of authority, is the “legal minimum” really good enough?

I refer you once more to the quote I cite from Carey Casey above. I am not interested in people trusted with authority carrying out legal minimums for reporting crimes against children. Instead I choose to discern just what level of advocacy we expect from adults in our community. Children cannot advocate for themselves. Instead adults must do that for them as we are all entrusted with their care. I am not an “it takes a village” advocate; however when it comes to the care of children we must all seek a standard that treats the value and protection of children from evil with the highest standards of judgment.

So as I watched the spectacle of outcries for Joe Paterno’s fate this week, I want to instead focus my own sliver of energy upon speaking for the actual victims in this fiasco – all of them not men, but boys.

I am thankful that the Board of Trustees at Penn State University finally “did the right thing” themselves and gave no quarter to men in authority and representation of their University. The Trustees sought the highest standard for authorities, and that is to be commended. These are all men who should have known better, and in my view only have themselves to thank for their dismissal from employment at Penn State University. While many of these people may have done the “legal minimum” in their individual cases, their zeal for seeking justice for the real victims was allegedly lacking…although hindsight is always 20/15.

The actions of Penn State’s Board of Trustees allowed interim president Rodney Erickson to definitively state, “Never again should anyone at Penn State — regardless of their position — feel scared to do the right thing.”

I do pray that Joe Paterno and his family can find true peace and forgiveness. I hope that the rumors and leaked details in this case are not true, for their sake and for the sake of untold boys harmed by their colleague after they knew there was likely a serious problem.

More appropriately, I pray that the boys (many of them now men) and their families find healing and the peace that passes all human understanding. I save my sorrow and grief solely for them.

As adults, we have the most solemn responsibility to raise and protect the future generations. Let’s pause to remember that serious responsibility. These responsibilities and virtues will always transcend the temporary values we place upon constructs of the world.

Cross-posted at BA Cyclone

Full disclosure:  I volunteered for the Michele Bachmann campaign at the Ames Straw Poll.

I thought I would share with you a few pictures and just a little insight into what it looked like “on the ground” this past Saturday at the Ames Straw Poll.

My day began early in the morning, as I made the 90-minute drive to get to Ames in time for the volunteer check-in at the Bachmann tent at 8am.

The first thing I saw walking in from the parking lots down the west side of the Iowa State Center complex was a strong presence by Mike George’s “Strong America Now” group, who had a big tent and great signage just to the west of the central voting area.  There were many people wearing their T-shirts all day.

Ron Paul paid top dollar for the A-1 real estate area in the Iowa State Center for this event.  Voting is in two places, the Scheman building just next to their area (left here), and in Hilton Coliseum.  All prospective voters will generally walk by this area to either vote or get to the other candidate’s tents.

One of the more remote tents (technically) was Herman Cain’s, seen here just before 8am.  He had a rather modest, but respectable setup.  I was told after the event that they had pre-ordered 500 pizzas for his tent, and had to order at least 100 more to meet demand.  That was all hearsay, but I saw lots of people holding slices of pizza as they walked past the Bachmann tent.  I never got to this section the rest of the day so I can’t speak to how busy they truly were, but the voting results were at least decent for them.

Michele Bachmann had a large air-conditioned tent, with a “over here!” balloon flying above it.  The A/C turned out to be not as valuable since the weather turned out to be stunningly pleasant.  For people walking up the central avenue from the lots, it was a great spot as it was right at the end of that walk.  That avenue was also lined with most of the rest of the non-candidate vendors.

Here was the scene as I walked up to check in with volunteers.  There was a genuine Founder present, complete with English accent!  Nice touch.  The gentleman in pinstripes in the foreground flew in from California to volunteer, he was fantastic.  Not pictured, arriving just a bit later was a whole busload of volunteers from the Oral Roberts College Republicans (Tulsa, OK) – they were terrific and a great help.

Directly adjacent to Bachmann’s tent was Thaddeus McCotter.  They had 2 panel vans plastered with signs when I arrived, a stage, and a kiddie bounce house.  More pictures later.

GE/tpi (Newton, IA) had this huge wind generator fan blade there, with a stage for people to come up and write on the fan blade.  I thought it was a pretty cool idea.  If you live in Iowa, a regular occurrence is to see large windmill parts riding on huge trucks on the state and federal highways.

Rick Santorum’s tent is seen to the left here.  They had hamburgers on the grill and you could see that wonderful smoke from quite a long way off all day.  They had a pretty good spot for real estate.  It was further from the main avenue, but very close to the Hilton voting entrance.

I didn’t get any pictures of the Tim Pawlenty tent.  It was located pretty remotely in a separate corner from the rest of the tents.  If you drove into the Iowa State Center from the north or happened to walk up the east side of the complex from the south, you would not miss the Pawlenty tent.  They had a huge sign promoting their catering from Famous Dave’s, which would have been great if I’d had a chance to get over there!  My “Bachmann Volunteer” T-shirt might have drawn me a lot of funny looks, however.

Fred Karger actually had about 6 people there around a little table promoting his “candidacy” as well.  I didn’t bother to take a picture.

Rick Perry did have a handful of supporters that I personally saw handing out flyers and generally promoting him most of the day during the voting period.  “Americans for Rick Perry” was not allowed to have an actual table at the Straw Poll by a (close) ruling of the state committee, as well as his name on the ballot.  I think the state committee wanted to respect the announced campaigns that were spending time and resources in Iowa, which of course was at the expense of a “draft candidate” campaign table.  This was, however the first time a “write-in” line was added to the ballot.

No presence: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman.

Here is the first shot I have of people entering the main avenue (looking south), between the Ron Paul area and Hilton Coliseum, roughly 10:45am.  Voting was from 10-4.  My job ended up being to walk up and down this avenue and near the Bachmann tent, carrying a large sign like you see here to guide voters to the tent, and later to guide groups with tickets to the voting area.  We also had several golf carts ferrying people from the charter bus area to the Bachmann tent site.

The registration booths at the Bachmann tent were steady and strong from 9am and really did not slow down until after 3pm.  We had about 20 people registering voters and getting them tickets to vote.

About 11:15am, I took a group of voters over to the line for the Scheman Building polls in search of the shortest line.  The line over there was crazy long.  We took the rest of our voters to Hilton for the balance of the day.  I had to snap this picture of the Paul area, plus the AARP tent in the right foreground.  Also I had to get a picture of their “The Sliding Dollar” kiddie slide.  Priceless.

This was the best shot I could get of the food line for the Bachmann tent, roughly 11:45am.  I am standing very near the Santorum tent, and the Bachmann food is all the way in the back of this picture just to the right of the two white balloon pillars.  Most of the people facing away from me in this picture are in line for Bachmann’s food, the people going to the right I think were going to Santorum’s tent.  Someone told me the wait for Bachmann’s food was as much as 3½ hours.  She had the Iowa Machine Shed restaurant cater a BBQ beef sandwich, mashed potatoes/gravy, salad, hot dogs, corn dogs, sno cones, ice cream cups, and bomb pops.  I think that was it!  I never got any of the food, because I felt guilty cutting this line even though I was volunteering and had permission!

Here is a “short” line at the Hilton entrance, about 11:45am.  From 10-11 the line was 3x this long, but the rest of the day it pretty much looked just like this at Hilton.  The Straw Poll volunteers did a great job!  Turnout was the heaviest since the 1999 Straw Poll, which was also heavily contested between mainline candidates.

Here is the NRA booth area.  They were giving out hunter’s orange baseball caps, signing up members and of course giving out information.

This was the tent for the Iowa Gun Owners group.  They were signing up members, giving out T-shirts and also asking people to sign a petition for “Constitutional Carry”.  In 2011, Iowa became a “shall-issue” concealed-carry permit state thanks in large part to the efforts of this group, but they are continuing to work hard to increase gun rights in Iowa.

Steve King (not pictured) also had a table here, since for the 2012 cycle this area will now be in “his” Congressional district due to re-districting.  He gave remarks on the main stage.

I snapped this picture of a nice man handing out papers promoting his ideas about government.  Priceless.  Also not pictured: at least one Abraham Lincoln, and one more 18^th Century participant.

I happened to walk by when Chuck Grassley was walking on the main avenue and got a picture of him talking to constituents.  He also spoke on the main stage.

The main stage in Hilton Coliseum had a program with remarks from all the participating candidates, plus local Republicans.  In order they were:  Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn, Governor Terry Branstad, Rick Santorum, Lt. Governor Kim Reynolds, Ron Paul, Congressman Steve King, Tim Pawlenty, Senator Chuck Grassley, Michele Bachmann, Congressman Tom Latham, Thaddeus McCotter, and Herman Cain.

Here is another picture of the main avenue, this time standing further north and closer to the Bachmann tent, now roughly 2:45pm.

Michele Bachmann appeared on stage in her tent with Randy Travis just after 3pm. I have no idea how many people were packed into the tent, but we essentially had to close the entrances by 1pm and they opened the large panels opposite the stage so people could see and hear from outside.  I stood by the doors for quite some time helping direct people around to the back.  During that time I met a large group of Women Legislators (I wish I could remember the exact name) who were there from the east coast (NJ, VA, etc) and were there with John Fund.

After her tent program was over, Michele led a caravan of any remaining voters over to the Hilton entrance.  I went in to vote myself at about 3:55pm.
The polling equipment was leased from Story County, so it was regular election equipment.  The volunteers checked for a valid Iowa ID, punched your ticket, and gave you the ballot and instructions.

This might be the “Home of the Walking Taco” but I didn’t see any being served today.  Fill in the dot on the paper ballot, and feed it into the electronic ballot scanner.  That’s it!

Thaddeus McCotter performing on his stage just after the polls closed.

I hung around the Bachmann campaign bus until about 7pm, after Michele Bachmann was finally declared the winner and she came out to greet supporters.  I got to shake her hand and got an autograph on my “volunteer” T-shirt.  She was very appreciative and told me to ‘keep working hard in Iowa’ and I returned the encouragement to her.  The Bachmann staff was incredibly pumped up, and very proud to have gotten this win after just 5 weeks of campaigning in Iowa.  They worked many long hours in the campaign office calling supporters and undecided voters to get turnout to the Straw Poll as high as possible.

All in all it was a fantastic day for Republicans.  Lots of money was raised to benefit Iowa Republicans,of course. It was a wonderful experience to watch this beautiful example of American democracy in action.  I think most people came with their mind made up whom they were voting for, but others came to ‘take it all in’ and get more information about the candidates.  Several people asked me to give a personal testimonial why I was for Michele Bachmann.

This was my first Straw Poll experience, so I didn’t know what to expect.  Generally it was just great to see so many conservatives out supporting or learning about the candidates, learning about conservative advocacy groups, and just enjoying a beautiful day in Iowa.  I met quite a few people from out of state that came to volunteer or simply experience this process.  That was certainly a little surprising to me.

What does it all mean?
As I have said elsewhere, what this means to the Presidential candidates is totally subjective.  The Ames Straw Poll is “just a straw poll” at the end of the day, but it is the biggest and possibly most contested straw poll in the nation.  Every cycle it will mean something different.  It is a political data point that can be important and even critical to some campaigns, and possibly meaningless to others.

To someone like Tim Pawlenty who has been campaigning hard and spending cash in Iowa for months, it was devastating.  For Michele Bachmann, to win after just five weeks of campaigning was clearly a key to validate her place on the top line of nominee contenders.  Further, I think she has to be the current favorite to win the Iowa caucuses, even though the correlation between those two events is highly limited, at best.  Rick Santorum’s relatively “strong” showing in the Straw Poll seemed to give their campaign encouragement to continue.  Conversely, I have to think the Herman Cain campaign was disappointed, even though they got nearly the same number of votes as did Santorum and seem resolute to continue on.  One would think Herman Cain needed to finish in the top three to sell validity on the campaign trail.  For a campaign that has long been campaigning in Iowa, this cannot exceed their expectations.  Even though Mitt Romney did not participate at all (likely having more to lose here than gain), you have to wonder what they must think of Rick Perry’s write-in campaign netting more votes than did Romney, who was at least on the ballot and had campaigned extremely hard in Iowa for the last election cycle.

Clearly with Rick Perry entering the race this weekend, the campaign looks very different today, in conjunction with the result of the Ames Straw Poll.  Michele Bachmann might now be the supposed front-runner in Iowa, but I suspect Rick Perry will certainly have something to say about that.  They appear to be the two candidates who will best fight to overcome the inertia of Mitt Romney’s past campaign here.  It will be interesting to see if Romney now runs more heavily here, or if he will continue to try and firewall New Hampshire and onward.

However the Ames Straw Poll did still play its small part at threshing some of the grain from the chaff.  It was great political theatre and a fine day to witness a little bit of “democracy in action.”

Maybe in a future Straw Poll I will be less of a volunteer and instead come to enjoy the whole spectacle a bit more fully, who knows?  By working hard for a candidate, I certainly missed out on some of the action in other places.  However I certainly don’t regret working a long day to help out the campaign of a conservative I really like, and it is all the more pleasing to have that effort rewarded with a victory.

I will definitely seek to keep coming to this event in the future; it is a lot of fun for a political junkie like me!

Cross-posted at BA Cyclone.

Final Ames Straw Poll results (from Iowa GOP):

I suspect most reasonable Americans, and certainly most reasonable Iowans are very sorry that someone woke up Tom Harkin for a press conference on Tuesday, July 20th (thanks to Brian Koenig for the video link), where he claimed several hysterical things and generally appeared angry, senile, or both.

VIDEO
Listen, Mr. Harkin, I am embarrassed enough that you are a Senator for my state. I don’t need you to also conflate “raising the debt ceiling” with “defaulting on the debt” as you choose to do here, and embarrass us all further. This is not a complex concept. You are either revealing a stunning lack of intelligence, or resorting to blatant fear-mongering.

Further, if it is some kind of “cult” to want our nation to pay for CURRENT public spending with THIS year’s tax revenues, rather than tax revenues that my toddler has not yet earned to remit to you, call me a cult member! It must take some kind of sick narcissism or gravitas for any reasonable person to believe that wanting our nation to balance its budget, rather than borrow $ TRILLIONS from the future for spending today, is somehow out of the mainstream. This when 48 States, including Iowa, have their own Balanced Budget Amendment. (PDF link)

Senator Harkin, please keep your hands off my child’s unearned property, and maybe do him and all of us a favor and retire early before you embarrass yourself and Iowa any further.

Oh, and one last thing, about laying all the blame for “all this spending” at the feet of Republicans? I’ll leave you with a chart of public spending, and you decide who has spent what:

Just in case you might have forgotten Senator Harkin (as you apparently have), Democrats took over sole control of Congress in 2007. I can’t help that President George W. Bush could not bear to tell you “NO” back then. When President Obama was inaugurated in 2009, Capitol Hill was overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats — they needed exactly zero votes from Republicans (and usually got about that many) to pass any bill from start to signature. Please look at the chart above again using that context. Note that the area leading up to roughly 2007, we appeared to be on a path to balancing the budget…and how quickly that ended once Democrats assumed control of Congress.

For any person to lay all the blame of our present fiduciary crisis solely upon Republicans requires full suspension of reality.

Sounds like some kind of cult to me. What color is the sky in your world, Senator?

Rainbows and Unicorns

HOLD THE LINE

Cross-posted at BA Cyclone’s blog

This morning I was reading a mildly interesting story about the Iowa Straw Poll, and how six candidates “purchased real estate” for the Straw Poll via auction.  Frankly, I have never visited this event before, so the background and detail was new to me.

Anyway, halfway into the online article, the story takes a very strange twist.  Maybe because Michelle Bachmann is an Iowa native, the writer takes the opportunity to shift the focus of this Iowa Straw Poll article completely upon her.

It begins with this opening:

Bachmann was born in Waterloo and was only here until the sixth grade, but apparently, that was enough to leave her with a lasting impression.

“Everything I needed to know, I learned in Iowa,” Bachmann told Iowa reporters.

[SNIP]

The Minnesota congresswoman said most people don’t know her Iowa story. Her family has seven generations of Iowans, with roots dating back to when her ancestors immigrated from Norway in the 1850s. She credits Iowa with giving her the values and voice she has today, with an emphasis on being frugal and not spending more than she take in. She said those values have guided her as a mother, tax lawyer, foster parent and member of Congress.  “I’ve taken those values and that voice to the halls of Congress,” Bachmann said. “Now, I want to take that Iowa voice to the White House.”

The writer then parlays that into quoting two Democrat operatives, I can only guess for balance:

Pat Sass, chairwoman of the Black Hawk County [home to Waterloo] Democratic Party and a board member of the League of Women Voters, said her support remains firmly behind President Barack Obama. She questioned Bachmann’s crediting Iowa for everything she needed to know.

“I can’t support her, I’m sorry. That’s just the way it is,” Sass said. “She was very young when she left here. I can’t believe that she got all of her knowledge from Waterloo. I’m just not believing it. I didn’t know anything about her up until when she said she was from here. I’m just not going to support her. I’m a Democrat all the way. I do not believe in her beliefs.”

And another for good measure:

State Rep. Todd Taylor, D-Cedar Rapids, said he believes Bachmann’s love of Iowa has more to do with wanting to woo Iowa caucus-goers. He said a person’s birthplace doesn’t necessarily determine a person’s allegiance.

“I see that for what it is,” Taylor said. “She can certainly claim birthright in Waterloo. So that’s fine. I was born in Ames. Am I (an Iowa State University) Cyclone fan? No. … I think that’s more of a play to appeal to the Iowa caucus-goers.”

It is cause for me to wonder, is it some kind of minimum requirement that liberal Democrats must have no sense of humor?  Do these people ever think beyond face value?  Do these Democrats honestly think their analysis or criticism is profound?  Or even relevant?

I am not sure if the “all I have ever needed to know” line is a regional thing, but I was pretty sure “everyone” knows it sort of a term of endearment.  It took all of a minute on The Google™ to find silly T-shirts with this saying.  Apparently, neither of these people received a T-shirt from a loving grandparent saying “All I ever needed to know I learned from Grandpa.”

Yes, the line is a total sop to Iowa voters.  I get that.  I am fine with that.  I don’t expect Mrs. Bachmann to trumpet that line anywhere outside Iowa.  You would have to be somewhere around the level of grade-school intelligence to not be able to see this and figure that out.  But I repeat myself…

Of course this also makes me wonder if one juicy side benefit to a Michelle Bachmann campaign could be that she will bring these intellectual lightweights out of the woodwork, like moths to a light.  Or like Bildeberger tin-foil hat types to a blog ban-fest.

To further the evidence, we have the whole glitter-bomb (EPIC FAIL) event at RightOnline last weekend:

So I already liked Michelle Bachmann, but maybe her effect on lefties will help keep the primary season extra entertaining.

Cross-posted at BA Cyclone’s blog.

There has been much, and seemingly lately an increasing call for Governor Rick Perry to enter the fray to end Barack Obama’s presidency with just one term.

It is rather easy to see a case why Mr. Perry would make an excellent candidate. As a governor, Mr. Perry automatically has executive, political bona fides that are hard to match. Being a governor alone isn’t enough though; you have to be a good governor.

Mr. Perry seems to have that qualification answered well, too. During Mr. Perry’s tenure, the private industry in his state has been a job-creating machine. In fact, during this Great Recession, and non-recovery Recovery, his state has been the locality for a large chunk of the net jobs created. While much of the country is suffering and languishing, the state of the economy in Mr. Perry’s state is not too bad, thank you very much.

Further, Mr. Perry is not just a governor of the average state. Mr. Perry is the governor of Texas, whose economy ($1.22 trillion in 2008) if ranked as a country unto itself would nearly qualify Texas for the G8.

This leads to another positive spin for Governor Perry – fundraising. Mr. Perry is not in the field of candidates right now. He cannot use political funds donated for his Governor campaigns to run for President. Effectively, Rick Perry has ZERO dollars in any campaign accounts for President. He has no ground game built. He has not built a staff to put together a campaign – many candidates for such a staff are presently working for other active candidates, such as Tim Pawlenty. However, Texas again is a large state chock full of large corporations, large private investors, and other legitimate benefactors that would presumably be happy to fund a Perry for President campaign. While Rick Perry might enter the campaign relatively late, he would have access to one Great Equalizer™ that would partially make up for that in a primary campaign – fundraising. Rick Perry is probably the only other potential candidate for President that could match the fundraising of Mitt Romney, or for that matter Barack Obama.

Perry for President?

So, what about Rick Perry as a candidate for President? What kind of Presidency could we expect from Rick Perry? What are Rick Perry’s conservative bona fides? Because for me, in this primary contest, I am not interested in simply unseating Barack Obama. The candidate I am seeking to support in the primary would also be a strong leader of conservatives in government. I believe to truly unwind the vast depths of tyranny that has taken root in Washington, D.C. we will need a candidate devoted to Constitutional first principles as much as Barack Obama is devoted to centralizing the powers of government over people.

Well, an interesting thing happened in my household last week. As we had the TV on in the living room around supper time, Fox News had a blurb about how more rumors were swirling regarding a potential Rick Perry for President campaign. My wife immediately said something to the effect of, “Oh Rick Perry, he is a very bad man.” My wife is not exactly a political junkie by any stretch of the imagination. Frankly, I was surprised she even knew who Rick Perry was, so naturally I asked for clarification. My wife immediately relayed to me a story I had never heard about: how Rick Perry sought to mandate by executive order young women be immunized against human papillomavirus (HPV).

For those who might not know, HPV is a virus that can lead to several cancers, particularly in women. The point of contention is this – the virus is essentially a sexually transmitted disease. The chief vaccine – Gardasil – can prevent against such infections, but obviously is only effective before such an infection occurs. Gardasil is a vaccine, not a treatment. Thus, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends Gardasil be administered to young women in adolescence, before the likelihood of any sexual activity.

The Opt-Out Clause myth

Naturally, the first response to defend Rick Perry is the “opt-out clause” encased within the executive order.

Without using the obvious comparison to Obamacare “waivers,” let me point out that the Governor’s sole vision still puts a mandate upon parents to apply for a waiver to not be immunized. My point remains, parents already had that right and privilege before the Governor’s order. Instead, the Governor changed the status quo to mean a child would be immunized unless you petition the government to stop the train and allow your child to disembark.

Further, this opt-out clause is not quite as simple as you might imagine. From Politifact:

The order included an opt-out “in order to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children’s health care.” Perry ordered the Department of State Health Services to allow parents dissenting for philosophical or religious reasons to request a conscientious objection affidavit form. That form, which has been available since 2003, enables parents to enroll their children in public school even if they lack state-required immunizations. It’s automatically granted as long as parents provide all required information.

According to the Department of State Health Service’s 2008-09 immunization report, which uses data from kindergarten and seventh-grade students at 1,300 independent school districts and 800 private schools, 0.28 percent of the students filed conscientious objection forms.

Parents must renew exemption affidavits every two years to maintain their validity, according to Allison Lowery, assistant press officer at the Texas Department of State Health Services.

We thought the opt-out form for public-school students proved Perry correct until we learned that not all private schools accept the affidavit. That means some private schools may not allow their students to exempt themselves from any state-required vaccinations. Some 15 percent of more than 1 million Texas girls in fifth through 12th grade in 2008 were enrolled in private schools, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

According to a 2006 Texas Attorney General’s opinion: “A private school that does not accept state tax funds is not required to accept for enrollment a child who has received an exemption from the immunizations required by the Texas Health and Safety Code.”

In its policy for Catholic schools, the Catholic Diocese of Austin states: “Immunizations are not in conflict with the Catholic faith. Conscientious objections or waivers, which may be permissible for enrollment in public schools, do not qualify as an exception to this policy.” Catholic schools in the diocese do accept medical exemptions, meaning if the immunization could somehow harm the child, it’s not required to enroll. [emphasis added]

To repeat, by the stroke of a pen Governor Perry changed the status quo, that parents must appeal to the government to not have their child immunized against a sexually transmitted disease. In practice, an opt-out provision is much more difficult than it sounds, particularly when scores of service providers (not just in Texas) require compliance with government mandates.

This is not liberty, this is tyranny.

The appearance of impropriety

While I was earning an advanced degree in business several years ago, you can imagine that “business ethics” was a hot topic in nearly every class within my curriculum. The news of the day was Enron and Sarbanes-Oxley. One definitional standard that stuck with me when seeking to determine ethical versus unethical behavior was the appearance of impropriety. In other words, maybe a particular action you are considering is wholly above board and completely honest. However, a valid test question could be: what will this action look like from the viewpoint of a disinterested third-party observer? What would it look like if the details were published in a newspaper report? If you can see that an action might appear unethical, then at the very least it is best to seek an even higher standard of scrutiny before proceeding. The mere appearance of a lack of ethics can make an honest and upright decision look untoward.

This standard brings us to the Merck Corporation, manufacturer of the only vaccine on the market at the time (Gardasil) that would satisfy Governor Perry’s executive order.

As part of its lobbying campaign, Merck has been funding Women in Government, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group made up of female state lawmakers. An executive from Merck’s vaccine division, Deborah Alfano, sat on Women in Government’s business council last year, and many of the bills across the country have been introduced by members of the group.

Merck declined to say how much money it has funneled into its lobbying campaign, or contributed to Women in Government. A spokeswoman for Women in Government, Tracy Morris, declined to say how much it had received from Merck. In Texas, one of Merck’s lobbyists is Gov. Perry’s former chief of staff, and Merck’s political action committee contributed $6,000 to the governor’s re-election campaign.
– The Wall Street Journal, February 7, 2007 [emphasis added]

By authoring the mandate via executive order, rather than seeking a full public debate and allowing the light of the legislative process to shine upon such a government-mandated action – Governor Perry’s objectivity comes into question.

We all know that it takes cash to run successful campaigns. We know that businesses large and small donate money to candidates in that regard, just as do individuals. The mere nature of a political process will create associations between politicians and interested parties.  We do not need to assume the worst: that this was a quid pro quo, a “thanks for the donation” by Perry to Merck. However when presented with the sequence of events, it is not exactly a giant leap of faith to conclude that Governor Perry’s choice of action in this case was less than ethical. At the very minimum, it appears unethical due to the associations between the parties, casual and actual. I submit the Governor should have sought a higher scrutiny of his desired outcome, if only to maintain the appearance that his actions were not biased by his political donations and associations.

Liberty versus Tyranny

What gives me serious pause is Rick Perry’s clear, unforced choice that he apparently believes the government knows best regarding a child’s vaccination for a sexually transmitted disease. For me, it speaks to a troubling vision of government’s relationship with its people. While I know there is certainly evidence in Governor Perry’s background to counterpoint this example, it does not allay the concern. As I have said, the candidate I seek to support would restore the Constitutional vision of the relationship of the government to its people. Barack Obama, liberals, and statists in both major political parties have been shooting holes in the protections of people from their government within the Constitution for decades. It will take a spirited leader with enormous courage of convictions to do this in today’s Washington, D.C. With actions like these and others, I have serious reservations that Rick Perry would be such a person. In fact, I fear that in terms of leading a conservative movement, Rick Perry could be another George W. Bush. That is not a good thing in this case.

For my wife, she plainly states “I will never vote for that man.”  I suspect her viewpoint (and conclusion) as a mother and a conservative woman is not unique.

Further, I think the larger point is that for a potential candidate like Rick Perry, we cannot casually dismiss the fact that he has not been vetted by a national audience. While he may have run several successful campaigns for Governor in a very large state, that is still not equivalent to the microscope of national politics and national voters. If we effort to draft another candidate to the field, we do still run the risk (however significant) of drafting a candidate we may not “know everything” about. What might have been acceptable at one time to voters in Texas might play very differently on a national scene.

On my scorecard, I have serious reservations about the statist tendencies of several candidates:

• Pawlenty – supported a state cap-trade energy initiative; decidedly not conservative. Apologized, for what that is worth.
• Romney – his behavior regarding state control of medical care is well documented, and seriously troubling.
• Perry – I have serious issues distinguishing Rick Perry from the above two candidates at face value. Perry’s obvious counterpoint is the relative success of the economy in Texas during his leadership. Pawlenty and Romney largely lose relative to Perry on this point. Make no mistake; this is a terrific trump card for Governor Perry to hold when the economy figures to be the chief issue of this Presidential campaign. However, does it matter if we restore economic prosperity in America, when a President cannot dependably lead from the front on conservative, Constitutional principles?

The Choice

Having other options, I will not caucus for a candidate who apparently sees no issue with government mandating my child be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease.  In a free republic, this should be a decision left to the parents of children, not the government.

Crossposted at BA Cyclone’s blog

UPDATE:

In Rick Perry’s first days on the campaign trail, he openly apologized for issuing the executive order mandating HPV vaccines:

On his first day on the campaign trail, Texas Gov. Rick Perry admitted he made a mistake on the sole issue some pro-life advocates bring up as a concern despite his sterling pro-life record.

Perry, in a conversation with a New Hampshire voter, walked back his decision to mandate the vaccine Gardasil to 11-year old girls. According to a Politico report, a voter confronted him on the issue — explaining his remorse for the decision and indicating he put an opt-out provision in place allowing parents to decide not to have their young girls receive the vaccine.

Perry explained that, in his zeal to protect children, he went too far.

“I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is I didn’t do my research well enough to understand that we needed to have a substantial conversation with our citizenry,” he said. “I hate cancer. Let me tell you, as a son who has a mother and father who are both cancer survivors.”

“I hate cancer. And this HPV, we were seeing young ladies die at the early age. What we should have done was a program that frankly should have allowed them to opt in, or some type of program like that, but here’s what I learned — when you get too far out in front of the parade they will let you know. And that’s exactly what our legislature did.”

UPDATE: “I made a mistake on that,” Perry told Iowa Radio later in the day Monday, calling it “an error in not having a conversation with the people of the state of Texas.”

“I agreed with their decision. I don’t always get it right, but I darn sure listen,” he said of the legislature responding to his decision.

“One of the things I do pride myself on, I listen. When the electorate says, ‘Hey, that’s not what we want to do,’” Perry told Houston’s ABC affiliate on Monday. “We backed up, took a look at what we did.  I understand I work for the people, not the other way around. There was a better way to do that, I realize that now.” [empasis added]

In modern politics, you rarely get a far-reaching and complete ‘apology’ like this on any issue of importance.  When someone offers an apology, I believe we need to consider their sincerity and by discernment, consider the matter closed.  I believe we have that situation here.

Considering this mea-culpa, I consider my issues with Rick Perry’s candidacy completely closed.  Rick Perry is a true conservative, and he is also human.  Rick Perry is a governor and has served as governor for 10 years.  Everyone makes mistakes.  What is critical is that our leaders learn from such mistakes.  I cannot help but consider that a candidate with Rick Perry’s level of experience as a leader and executive in government public service would make an excellent President of the United States.

Maybe you are relatively new to this idea of conservatism.  Maybe you were afraid of conservatives or conservatism because you thought we are just a bunch of greedy, self-centered people.  Maybe you just prefer to ‘stay out of it’, but you have been paying attention to the news of the day and have a new level of “caring” about what happens in the public square.  Maybe you once believed that the government was “for you” but now what the Democrats (and some Republicans) have been doing over the last 2-4 years (or longer!) has made you think again.  So let me explain in detail what being conservative, or particularly what being a Constitutional conservative means to me.

The more I learn about things, the more I come around to the description of my political beliefs as a Constitutional conservative.  I am not into labels, but that is a rather descriptive term for my beliefs.  In general, whether it is economics, monetary policy, national defense, or just human behavior – I find that the wisdom contained within the design of the Constitution pales in comparison to anything I can conceive or hope to find elsewhere in history.

I enjoy listening to talk radio shows when I can, and one I frequent in particular is the Mark Levin Show.  He has free podcasts you can download which naturally help me follow along tremendously, but my attraction isn’t just that.  He frequently raises the political debate to something higher than the events of the day.  He includes a brand of education, history, and political philosophy that I find appealing.  That, plus he does not suffer fools very long on the program!

Anyway as I was a little behind on the programs and trying to catch up, this week I was glad I did not skip past the program from Tuesday, April 19^th.  For the opening monologue, Mark treated us to about eight minutes of pure conservative philosophy.  I found it so relevant and well-thought-out that I decided to type up a quick transcript from that monologue, and share it here.  It appears quite long of course, but it’s just a few paragraphs so I hope you’ll take time to read through the whole thing.  If you’d like to hear the audio version yourself, you can download the program for yourself on the podcast site HERE:

We are Americans.  So for the Founding Fathers, individual liberty was not possible without private property rights.  For the Founding Fathers, the only legitimate government was not only one that was instituted with the consent of the people, but one that would preserve and protect the individual’s right to property.  Jefferson talked about it, talked about ‘tyranny of the legislature.’  So the consent of the governed is only part of it. 

But the government never has the authority to be tyrannical; it never has the authority to seize your property illegitimately.  Private property represents the individual’s labor, your labor, your initiative, your industriousness, your ambition, and so forth.  We all have an equal right, an unalienable right as they wrote in the Declaration to pursue happiness.  That especially involves the pursuit of property and wealth – not that materialism makes you happy, the point was so you can at least subsist, but even more expand your wealth and improve your lifestyle and that of your family.  We do not have a “right” to equal results and outcomes.  And this is the battle – we do not have a right to make demands on the labor and property and wealth of another individual, for that individual also has unalienable rights. 

The purpose of government in the United States of America, according to the Founders is first and foremost to protect and preserve the individual’s unalienable rights.  These rights are God-given natural rights: no man, no government has the authority to deny them or destroy them.  That is not to say that we as a community or society ought not look out for our fellow man; we did this even before there was a massive, leviathan State.  We did this through good works, through charity, through churches and synagogues, through volunteerism, through good acts all the time.  Most of us do not mind being taxed at a rational level to help take care of those who are truly incapable of survival due to physical or mental disabilities.  That is different than redistributing the wealth.  That is different than “spreading the wealth.”  That is different than class warfare. 

Our Constitution is intended to protect us from a central government that would take advantage of us as individuals.  It does not grant power to the federal government to violate our unalienable rights.  It does not authorize the federal government to take the fruits of our labor, whether physical or intellectual, to “spread the wealth” for “economic justice” or anything of the sort.  The Constitution does not empower anyone, especially the President of the United States, to take our labor, our property, our wealth from us and our families in order to equalize economic outcomes.  I don’t care what you are worth.  To say that some person has a right to another person’s labor simply because one person demands it, or because a politician thinks it can be put to better use, or because a group of people think it can be put to better use and vote that way, does not make it Constitutional nor does it make it moral, and it clearly violates the unalienable rights of the person who is being targeted.  When the government seizes the power to take what you have earned with your own labor and put it to an illegitimate use, then government has power that is not recognized in the Declaration or the Constitution. 

Since property rights are inextricably tied to an individual’s liberty, the government is expanding its power not only over your labor, but over you, as a human being.  This is exactly what is happening today.  This is exactly what you hear Obama saying in these speeches.  He is claiming a power he does not have.  That is, the power to decide whose labor is to be protected by the government, and whose labor is to be seized by the government.  Obama is saying that the government has the power to take whatever it needs from an individual, thereby punishing that individual and rewarding some other individual who has not earned it.  They call this “a right.”  You have a “right” to health care, a “right” to go to school; you have a “right” to this, a “right” to that.  But somebody else is losing their liberty, in support of this politician who is stealing from one to give to another.  And by the way, not altruistically either, but for power and votes.  This is said to be “just”; this is said to be “fair.”  This is said to be “compassionate,” yet it violates the individual’s unalienable rights and the limits the Constitution places on the federal government.  There is nothing fair, just, or compassionate about it. 

The reason why liberals cannot tell you ‘what are the limits of this new power’ is because there are not any limits.  The government identifies what’s unequal, what program it wants to fund or create, what “entitlement” it wants to create or expand, calls it a “right” and then plunders individuals that it targets.  You might think ‘why do I care?  Let me have my piece.’ … Your children are also, under God granted unalienable rights, recognized by our Declaration.  Your children, and their labor, and their motivation, and their ambition, and their industry, and who they want to be, and how they want to be, is also protected by the United States Constitution.  If Obama and people like him, people of this alien ideology who reject unalienable rights, who reject the limits of the Constitution are successful, then what are you?  What are your children?  They will not have the freedom that your parents and grandparents had.  They will not have the ability to be successful, to pursue opportunities, to improve their lifestyles, to take care of their families the way that you, your parents, and your grandparents have.  This is fundamental ladies and gentlemen…we need to get back to first principles. … What is an American?  What is the American society?  What is the American culture?  It’s completely different; it’s the opposite of what you hear Obama saying day in and day out.  [emphasis added]

– Mark Levin, The Mark Levin Show, 4/19/2011  ~2:00-10:30

In essence, as a conservative I want every American to be successful.  No exceptions – even corporations.  I do not want the government to pick winners; I want customers to pick winners.  The Declaration of Independence talks about “the pursuit of happiness” as a God-given right, among other “unalienable rights” for a host of reasons.  As Mark Levin plainly states above: this is a right of equal opportunity in modern language, but not a right to equal results.  Unequal results are part of humanity, and not evidence of unequal opportunity!  Stated another way, we are all gifted with equal value, but we are all gifted differently.  It is up to each of us to make the best of our God-given gifts and abilities, and live accordingly.  Society may place different monetary values upon people, but not God.

The Constitution is therefore written as a document not just to design the government, but to act as a protection of the people and these unalienable rights from government.  In other words, the founding fathers had personal experience of government tyranny ‘doing what is best for the people,’ and they also knew the host of similar governments throughout history.  To be kind, the track record for such governments was not good with respect to the people living within them. 

The Founders’ vision for the United States of America was very different.  This would not be just a group of tyrants we can vote in and vote out (pure democracy), but instead it is a government that is literally of the people: a republic.  In other words, the federal government’s role is to protect the unalienable rights of its people, and frankly nothing more.  This government is designed to be like a physicians’ creed: first, do no harm.  The Founders knew that even the perfectly designed government was still a stupid, blunt instrument compared to individuals with liberty engineering their lives as best they see fit.  We are not all separate individuals – we do have a responsibility to uphold a civil society.  Rather, the Founders understood that a country made of individuals with liberty over their own lives is collectively stronger than any other design.  The Founders recognized the basic nature of human spirit – that a person is generally their own best advocate for what works best in their life.  A person’s self-interest creates the strongest human condition for that person.  Thus, they built a government that recognizes this truth: individual liberty must be protected.

President Obama is now talking about a mythical “social contract” that exists within government.  The first social contract within our Constitutional government is to do no harm.  If you’ve been paying attention over the last 2 years, President Obama and statists like him have kept trying to sell us on the idea that they can fix what ails us, and you won’t have to pay for it!  Mythical “rich people” will pay for these remedies.  They even tried selling the idea that we could borrow and spend more (as we have already borrowed vast sums) to fix the economy.  This “stimulus” did not work as advertised, and instead has saddled future generations with more burdensome debt (we already had a lot) while delivering a barely average economy – in this country where exceptional is normal.  Instead of admitting error, the statists now preach to us ‘you don’t know how bad it would have been without the government spending this money!’  Doesn’t this all sound like a snake-oil sales pitch you would see on the TV at 1 a.m.?

So what kind of “social contract” do we owe to the generation behind us?  In literal terms, we are spending funds today that the next generation (our children) has not even earned to pay taxes upon.  Is this a truly moral position to hold?  Reform-minded plans like Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” take nearly a generation to merely zero out the annual deficit, or spending what we do not have today.  At the end of this plan we would still be left with a mountain of debt that must be addressed!  However even a moderate plan such as Paul Ryan’s is blasted by these statists as “unfair,” as though these Goldilocks have a better plan.

President Obama and the statists he leads are still talking about “investing in the future” with what amounts to our fourth mortgage.  Again, snake oil salesmen don’t admit they sold you plain water, they sell you on their next-best great idea. 

A Constitutional conservative like me is instead looking for a better way.  As a country, our family budget is a sick joke.  Our economy is a diamond that has lost its shine.  Our public education system is failing the next generation we are hoping can pay today’s bills.  Our energy policy appears aimless and disconnected from our economy’s need to grow.    Our immigration policies create an underclass that lives as interlopers in our society, afraid to assimilate for fear of getting caught and ‘sent back home’.  Government bureaucrats seek to prevent job creation unless their personal preferences (unions) are met.  Our failure to pay for today’s bills with today’s money raises the price of everything (inflation, interest rates, and commodities) and weakens the very businesses we need to succeed.

The real “social contract” exists within the American people, not within its representative government.  The statist vision of government has literally short-circuited the social contract of civil society.  We have collectively abdicated our role to “love our neighbor” to governments around us.  Our civil society gets weaker every time we think “the government will take care this.”  No government employee or agency or program will care for or about your neighbor better than you and the rest of your neighbors…or themselves.  Whether or not our society values something is NOT reflected with government programs:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

–  Frédéric Bastiat, The Law  — 1850

When I look for candidates to support and send to places of political power, I am looking for Constitutional conservatives who are interested in restoring Constitutional “first principles” as Mark Levin clearly states above.  Leadership requires leadership.

If you’re interested in reading more about conservative ideals, I strongly urge you to pick up a copy of Mark Levin’s fine book “Liberty and Tyranny”.   It is easy reading, and if you set your mind to it you can knock it out in a weekend.  The “conservative manifesto” at the end of the book is particularly powerful.  Tune into Mark’s program (or download it) once in awhile – just be advised that he can use terse language (I don’t listen when children can hear).  Seek out the “recommended reading” on RedState or on Mark’s site.

I think you will find that the more you educate yourself about the Founding of this United States of America, you will also call yourself a Constitutional conservative.

Cross-posted at BA Cyclone’s blog.

Thank You for the Stimulus

One standard modern procedure for a military battle when you hope to take ground is to “prepare the field”: use artillery, close air support, etc. to soften and confuse the enemy before you take the field yourself.

Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him.

—Sun Tzu’s Art of War, ss. 6.2: Weak Points and Strong

While this “budget battle” is hardly a military endeavor, for conservatives, the President has unknowingly helped us to “prepare the field” for returning liberty to the hands of the American people.

If spending money by the central government leads to prosperity, then certainly we should expect to be awash in said prosperity today, wouldn’t you think?

President Obama’s “stimulus” spent $821 billion on relief programs and alleged projects to spur job growth. Without giving focus to the “promises” within the marketing for passage of this bill, we can focus solely upon the results since the 2 years following its passage.

So Obama and the Democrats were in charge, with their historic majorities able to spend money at levels never before seen in all the history of our Government. Thus, they were able to spend nearly unlimited levels of resources upon ideas, programs, and projects to their own heart’s content. Effectively, they were able to whatever they liked with their representative powers. What was the result of this government largesse?

The shorter point is this: by spending more resources than ever before on centrally-planned “economic stimulus” projects, we have seen one of the worst-performing economic cycles in the recorded history of our country. And we have not just received “temporary relief” in return, but also guaranteed higher government spending.

GDP growth since President Obama’s “stimulus” has been, at best, decidedly average. Even the Great Depression of the 1920′s was able to show better temporary growth in the short run than the sustained relative malaise of this Great Recession. It would seem some level of naïve to not also give weight to a theory that this obscene government spending (plus increasing the far-reaching yet unknown mandates by government on businesses and individuals) has some correlation to the inability of this economic cycle to retreat from this general malaise and back into vibrant growth – like every other recession or depression recorded before now.

In other words, if the government today is doing something never done before at this level – and the economy is also behaving in a way generally not seen before (not in a good way) following an economic trough – should we not begin to wonder if the two are related?

Frankly, for a reasonable person this is a relatively easy case to make. If the wisdom behind a larger central government, spending record amounts of money (most of which we have not yet earned) were able to lead us to record prosperity – should we not be seeing evidence of that NOW? Surely the argument for such a lack of empirical evidence of prosperity could never be “we just need more funding” when the argument began with the Government spending more (unearned) funds than ever before!

Yet, the statists in the audience cannot give up their holy grail of centralized planning and control. ‘The evidence be damned, this is working! We just need more time and more funding!’

Without diving further into Economics 201, let me get right to the point of my post.

Evidence is heavily mounting that there is little, if any wisdom in centralized economic planning. Further, the case for shrinking government is further prepared by the immorality of spending resources (debt) today that have not yet been earned.

The national debt stands today at roughly $14.3 Trillion. If we merely follow the proposed budgets of the Obama administration, we have no hope of even balancing the budget for an entire generation, much less addressing the debt already accrued. While President Obama is technically only responsible for the debt accrued during his administration, as the Chief Executive of our nation (and thus the federal government) he is severally responsible for addressing the deficit AND debt as it exists today. Leadership requires leadership.

To buttress the point, if we literally zero out spending to stupid levels: no defense, no entitlements, all federal public servants from the President to the cube farm residents work only as volunteers – it would take roughly 6 years to simply pay off the existing federal debt without considering interest payments during that time. When I speak of the morality of the federal government, we are literally talking about how we should spend today the tax revenues my toddler child has not yet earned long into the future. How can this be a morally upright position? We are literally making decisions today using money the next generation has not yet had a chance to earn and thus be taxed upon.

The sad thing about this current state today is that it is blatantly clear the field for shrinking government has been well-prepared. Further, citizen movements such as “The TEA party” and their kin have shown broad-based support within the population to address this imbalance between centralized government, spending, and liberty.

I say this is a sad thing, as it continues to apparently be a political hot-potato in Washington D.C. to seriously consider broad-based cuts to government spending in general, and “entitlements” and other long-standing programs in particular.

GOP leadership has allowed this well-prepared field to be squandered in the short term. They have lost the PR battle in D.C. and in the media at large. If the GOP hopes to convince political moderates of the strength of their position, they need to realize and believe they speak from the proverbial higher ground. Who will believe you are in a position of strength if you continually act in weakness? Positions of strength do not remain so unless they are protected forcefully.

GOP leaders have instead believed the well-rehearsed propaganda of the statists that the GOP does not have a mandate to make serious cuts…that the worst thing that could happen for the GOP would be to “repeat 1995” and shut down the government. The statists of the left are clearly rooting for this shutdown to happen. What the GOP leadership continues to fail understanding is this is NOT 1995 – that was 16 years ago! I’ve already pointed out the clear field preparations that exist today, and much of this did not exist then. In particular, a CRUSHING debt and a tsunami of deficits (threatening to explode the former) did not exist in 1995.

Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity proposal at broad-based budget reform is naturally an excellent first step in the right direction. While Nancy Pelosi is apparently convinced that cutting one dollar from the federal budget will starve grandma, Paul Ryan’s proposal is remarkably modest, on balance.

This sort of budgetary reform has been well-telegraphed for some time and is not unexpected. I also realize that presently the GOP holds only one house of Congress and is thus hamstrung by the reality that the Democrats heavily check the ability of the GOP to reform anything. That said, the GOP effectively holds the keys to the purse! Let the Democrats shut down the government.

Let Democrats and President Obama own the immoral ground of spending the unearned taxes of our children on ant research projects, understanding monkey unfairness, and planting palm trees in Fresno, CA.

True budgetary reform will not be a quick-fix process, this much is certain. Our country has now spent multiple generations accruing this debt and government largesse, so no sane person expects it to happen in fiscal 2011.

However, the short-term actions of the present GOP leadership in apparently squandering a well-prepared field to even trim $61 billion from the current budget – a mere 4% of the current deficit – do not endear much optimism for their leadership ability.

If we cannot trust them with the small things, how can we trust them with the big things?

The continuing resolutions need to stop. At the very least, if more CR’s are required, they should get exponentially difficult for Democrats and the President to sign upon. The agenda of the American taxpayer should not wait for the political comfort of statists and Democrats. The U.S. House needs to pass a fiscal 2011 budget that makes serious, substantial cuts to the existing budget…$60-100 billion is a serious minimum, and let it ride. The bill(s) need to take DEEP hacks at some of the burgeoning government mandates of the last four years, particularly including the EPA and the Dept. of Health. I would also like the leadership to take a strong swipe at repealing or heavily neutering Obamacare and its time-release stink bombs. Also, take a strong push toward repealing the Dodd-Frank financial deform bill and replace it with a serious reform that addresses the structurally inept issues that still exist (partly due to previous “reforms”) – particularly Fannie/Freddie et.al., and the peculiar role of government in the mortgage and financial industry.

It would a moral and easily-defensible position to draw a line in the sand and politically declare ‘we are finished with squandering the resources of our future generations, cuts must happen now,’ and let the Democrats stake out the low ground while crying foul. The case could easily and intelligently be made, but it requires some calcium in your political backbone.

Does the GOP have enough?

Cross-posted at BA Cyclone‘s blog.