There seemed to be a bit of a different atmosphere surrounding Don Benton’s vetting session by We The People – Southwest Washington (WTP) earlier this week. No doubt, that was due to the fact that the vetting of this candidate for U.S. Senate came on the eve of Dino Rossi announcing his entrance into that race. In fact, in his opening remarks, Thomas Hann, Founder of WTP, named three tentative dates for Rossi’s vetting. Surprisingly, in Benton’s vetting session, no one asked him about Rossi’s (then) impending announcement. That was disappointing. I was looking forward to hearing Benton’s views on that.

With that said, I still found Benton’s vetting session to be interesting, including a couple of remarkable surprises. First of all, I was surprised at experiencing a more appealing performance on Benton’s part than I had expected. My first direct exposure to Benton was at a pro-life rally on the steps of the Capitol in Olympia. He was speaking (at length) and I asked another politician in the crowd about him. The other politician said, “Oh, that’s State Senator Don Benton. He’s a real blow-hard.” Of course, I gave Benton credit for speaking at a pro-life rally but I came away from there thinking of him as an old-style career politician … not my cup of tea. Next, I was present at the Clark County Lincoln Day Dinner when Benton announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. I felt like I was in a scene from “The Last Hurrah”, as Benton and his supporters trampled on the tone that Clark County GOP Chairman, Ryan Hart, had set to be even-handed to the numerous candidates present at that event. Needless to say, that only reinforced my view of Benton, as an old-style career politician. Most recently, that view was amplified further through reading Chris Widener’s article “The Skinny on the U.S. Senate Race in WA, from a Former Candidate”. In that article, though Widener seems to give Benton credit for being quite good at being a “politician”, his report of consistently getting an eye-rolling reaction when asking others about Benton just added to my opinion of this candidate, as an old-style career politician.

Maybe it’s just proof that Chris Widener is right that Don Benton is quite good at being a “politician” but, for the most part, I was favorably impressed with how Benton conducted himself during this vetting session. In his opening remarks, Benton noted that, in addition to his 15 years in government, he has operated a Sales consulting business for 30 years. I’m in favor of having elected officials who also have some real-world business experience and since I’m a Sales professional myself, I more easily identified with Benton. I also, appreciated Benton pointing out that, as a State Legislator, he had participated in the repeal of Washington State’s version of “Hillarycare” and relating that to the possibility of repealing “Obamacare”. Overall, I thought Benton did a good job of intelligently speaking to the issues that seem to be of the greatest concern to “the grassroots” and though he referred to himself as not being a “Constitutional Scholar”, I thought he did the best job so far of any candidate, in terms of speaking to Constitutional matters.

When it came to the Q&A portion of this WTP vetting session, again, I was favorably impressed with Benton’s performance. When he was asked about voting on legislation “with both good and bad components”, I appreciated Benton pointing out that he is the only candidate in Washington State’s U.S. Senate race who has a record as a legislator. In other words, you don’t have to just take his word that he is in favor of “one-item bills” and that he opposes earmarks. You can check his voting record.

My favorable impression of Benton’s performance continued as the Q&A session transitioned from questions being posed by the WTP panel to questions coming from attendees who had been selected by lottery. However, it was during this time that the second and most remarkable surprise of the evening occurred. I felt that Benton’s responses all seemed well aligned with the views of most WTP participants. That included the topic of Illegal Immigration, where Benton stated that it’s critical for us to “seal the borders.” Then, literally, with the last attendee-questioner in line, the tenor of the evening took a dramatic turn. The question centered on the topic of E-Verify, an internet-based system aimed at assuring that employers who get government contracts are only employing workers who are in the U.S. legally. The specific question was if, in his 15 years in state government, especially considering the significance of illegal immigration to Washington State, as a border state, Benton had ever drafted any state legislation intended to address this problem. It was though Benton had been poleaxed. For a few moments, he just seemed dumbstruck. Then, he muttered something about “15 years.” Finally, he said he didn’t recall doing so, though he said he “may have co-sponsored” some related legislation. I’m still not sure what this adds up to. When WTP makes the video recording of this session available, I suggest that you take a look at this for yourself and make your own determination about its implications.

Although Don Benton’s closing comments were mostly centered on the standard candidate closing pitch (though more polished than most) for volunteers and donations, he did make what seemed to be a veiled acknowledgement of the change in his race, with Rossi joining in. A couple of times he said that, next January, he will be serving us in the Senate … it’s just a question of whether it’s the U.S. Senate or the Washington State Senate. Obviously, we’ll see how this turns out. I’ll be looking forward to watching this election cycle continue to unfold. My hope is that a candidate can be fielded for the General Election who has the enthusiastic support of “We The People” and with that combination, we will retire Senator Patty Murray.

SPECIALNOTE: If you’ve been reading my “WTP Vetting Reports”, you know that I’ve been trying to cover each vetting session, including: U.S. Senate (WA), U.S. Congress (WA-03) and State Legislature (SW-WA). Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the WTP vetting session held on May 18^th. With that, I realized I’m just not going to be able to cover them all. I’ll do the best I can. Since I’ve covered all the Republican U.S. Senate candidates except Clint Didier, out of fairness to him, I sent the Didier campaign an offer to interview him. So far, they haven’t responded to my offer.

As the 2010 election cycle has been unfolding, it’s been obvious that this could be an historic year for Republican gains. No doubt, the driving force behind this has been the anti-Washington D.C. temperament that’s been developing among voters since the 2008 elections. Early indicators in this regard were last year’s Republican wins of the gubernatorial races in Virginia and in New Jersey. Of course, Scott Brown (R) winning “Teddy Kennedy’s seat” in the U.S. Senate, earlier this year, gave us the most ballyhooed example of this so far. More recently, we’ve seen Arlen Specter (Repocrat) ushered into retirement while Charles Djou (R) was elected to the U.S. Congress, representing the district in Hawaii where President Obama is reported to have been born. Certainly, the current political environment is one that should lead the GOP to be quite optimistic.

Although Republican optimism regarding today’s political landscape is justified, I’d prescribe a good dose of caution to go along with it. In this vein, some would warn against overconfidence. I agree. The GOP should heed that warning. Some worry about “peaking too early”/not being able to sustain present momentum through November. Again, I agree. The RNC would be wise to implement strategies aimed at this worry. And there are those who, like me, are concerned about the Republican Party not positioning itself shrewdly, to fully leverage their current, potentially historic, opportunity. A good example here is the mistake the GOP made last year in NY-23, supporting Scozzafava. Another instance of this is the one I pointed out in my recent article entitled “A Blind Squirrel Election Cycle For The GOP?”, involving a well-intended move on the part of the GOP that, in effect, ends up trampling on the will of those anti-Washington D.C. voters I mentioned earlier.

The area where I think my “good dose of caution” is most called for, though, is where there’s a notion that “the other guy” is no longer in the game. It seems that there are those who have the idea that “Progressives” have been rendered impotent or that they’ve given up and gone home. There’s no denying that they’ve been greatly wounded (much of it being self-inflicted) but it’s a huge mistake to think that they’ve given up. There are many “Progressives” who remain fully committed to their perverse view of what’s best for America and though they’re not currently dealing from a position of strength, their resources still include a pool of stellar political talent. I believe that the recent win by Mark Critz (D), in PA-12, serves as an excellent example of this and I hope the GOP is listening closely to the alarm this sets off.

On the surface, the Democrat’s win with Critz may not seem so ominous. One could take the view that, these days, even when the GOP loses one, worst case, we get a DINO (Democrat In Name Only). You could make that argument about Critz. He’s anti-abortion and pro-gun. He, also, opposed Obamacare (though he says he wouldn’t vote to repeal it). Even with those who might buy into this argument, it does seem that some lessons have been learned about DINOs or “Blue Dog Democrats.” The lesson is, the friend of my enemy is also my enemy.

But with the lessons-learned about “Blue dog Democrats” understood, once you drill down below the surface issues, it becomes a bit scarier. An excellent article on the Democrat’s win with Critz, in this special election, is from The Christian Science Monitor. It’s entitled “PA-12: A template for Democrats in November election?” This article notes that this Democrat win comes in “A congressional district where President Obama has a 35% approval rating” and that this “campaign could be a model for Democrats in the November election.” Man, I hope these themes are keeping more than one “someone” up at nights, at the RNC.

The aspect of the Democrats win with Critz that I found most chilling, though, was the role that was played by the “stellar political talent” that the DNC was willing to throw at this race. That included former President William Jefferson Clinton, aka Slick Willy himself, at his Primary Colors best. His message to voters with that “anti-Washington D.C. temperament” was: “Think about decisions you made when you were really mad. It’s about an 80% chance you made a mistake.” Like me, when you hear that, you may immediately think, “That’s a pretty good description of those who were looking for ‘Hope and Change’ in voting for Obama.” In this special election, in PA-12, voters lapped up the message Clinton was selling to the extent that the DINO, Critz, secured a 53% to 45% victory over his truly Conservative Republican opponent, Tim Burns.

In closing, let me acknowledge that because I’ve touched on a number of things here that are concerns for me where the GOP might “blow it” in a year when they could make historic gains, I could easily be perceived as a “glass-half-empty” kind of guy. Ironically, I believe those who know me best would describe me as just the opposite and I want to assure you that my goal isn’t to accentuate the negative. As I’ve noted before, I’m more politically involved now than at any other time in my life. The reason for this is because I refuse to stand idly by while those who are presently in power continue to flush the wonderful America I was blessed to be born and raised in. I’m looking forward to waking up on November 3, 2010, to find our nation set back on a better course. I just want to make sure we are doing all we can to maximize the opportunity lying before us.

Paul Akers was the fifth, out of this year’s Republican candidates for U.S. Senate, to be vetted by We The People – Southwest Washington (WTP). I have to admit to being pleasantly surprised with the “top-flight” performance that Akers delivered at this event.

The reasons behind my being “pleasantly surprised” on this occasion are two-fold: (1) Up to now, I probably have had less exposure to Paul Akers than any of the other U.S. Senate candidates vetted by WTP. (2) The majority of what I knew about this candidate came from a recent article by former candidate Chris Widener, entitled “The Skinny on the U.S. Senate Race in WA, from a Former Candidate”.  Frankly, I came away from reading this article not expecting to like Akers as a candidate and that accounts for the “pleasantly” part of my “pleasantly surprised” … based on what I saw at his WTP Vetting, I did like Paul Akers, as a candidate. No doubt, as a former fellow-candidate, Chris Widener has had a closer look at Paul Akers than I’m likely to ever get so I don’t want to, in any way, dismiss his views. However, I think it may be worthwhile to offer my views, from “The Peanut Gallery”, versus Chris’ views, as one who shared the dais.

The “Skinny” article comments on Akers’ interest in running for Governor of Washington State, in addition to his interest in running for U.S. Senate. That sounds like a Career Politician to me and I’m not a fan of anyone who fits that description. However, at his WTP Vetting, Akers came off as a guy whose business efforts were blessed enough that he was able to become a significant Donor for causes aimed at guarding the America he was blessed to grow up in. As he did this, he developed the sense that he is as equipped (or better equipped) to serve in this regard than most candidates he found himself supporting. So, he looked for the best fit for where he could serve. For me, this addressed one issue I always try to cover in reporting these vetting events – i.e. “The candidate’s motives for running?” and it seemed OK to me that he would consider more than one possibility for where he could serve. Widener’s article, also, includes remarks about Akers’ endorsement by Clinton-hater-in-chief, Dick Morris. Here too, I’m not a fan of old-style-politics tactics like getting the endorsement of every political hack you can find. In Akers’ vetting session, though, this came off as just a bit of background rather than an “I’ve been anointed by” sort of statement. The fact that Akers’ campaign website clearly states his commitment on Term Limits also helps me to not view him as a Career Politician.

Uncertainty about Akers’ beliefs and the lack of campaign visibility to his having been a Christian Minister are also issues that the “Skinny” article questioned. Of course, it’s possible that Akers, also, read Chris Widener’s article prior to this vetting event and that resulted in my experiencing a different Paul Akers. Regardless of the reason, that was the result. In fact, Akers let it be known that (like me) he had moved to Washington State from Southern California, that he graduated from BIOLA (Bible Institute of Los Angeles) and that he had served as a Minister before becoming a general contractor and then developing his entrepreneurial business. Adding to my perception of Akers’ willingness to share his views was the fact that, following his vetting session; he was engaged in continuous discussion with numerous attendees in the entryway of the vetting venue until the entire event was concluded. On a break, I got to join in that conversation and that included getting to discuss Southern California ministry experiences that Paul and I have in common. Here, again, finding Akers’ clear beliefs stated on his campaign website, about issues like Marriage and Abortion, don’t strike me as someone who is trying to hide their beliefs, as a Christian Fundamentalist.

Akers’ wealth and his campaign-fund-raising are, in sequence, the next topics addressed by the “Skinny” article. I really had mixed feelings after I read that part. I’m not a fan of people who present themselves as somehow superior because of the wealth they’ve been blessed with and I’m certainly not in favor of wealthy people “buying their way” into office. On the other hand, while I fully appreciate the need for candidates to do well with fund-raising, the old-style-politics use of this, as a gauge for selecting candidates, is a mechanism that I think should be diminished in importance. At least at his WTP vetting session, I have to say that Paul Akers came off as a man who is truly humble about the wealth he’s been blessed with and that he sees making use of that wealth to benefit his fellow-man as his responsibility, in being a good steward of that wealth. Incidentally, my use of the term “top-flight” in the title of this article is my sophomoric attempt at a pun, alluding to the fact that Akers is a pilot who flies his own plane. When I first learned about this, it was another indicator for me that Akers might be one of those people of means who view themselves as superior because of their wealthy status. I met a guy who seemed thankful to be in a position to make smart use of his aeronautical blessing to be more effective in a campaign that requires him to be all over Washington State’s great expanse.

The one observation that Chris Widener’s article makes that I’m more in agreement with is that Paul Akers does seem a bit “politically naive”. With me, though, that’s not all bad. For me, as long as a candidate seems willing and able to learn what they need to learn about serving as a politician, if they’re otherwise well equipped to be a citizen-servant, I can support that sort of candidate. Paul Akers struck me as being that sort.

So, that’s a lot more than I usually give on a candidate’s background, going into their WTP vetting but it seemed worthwhile to me. I hope it’s helpful to you.

As far as Paul Akers’ “ability to connect with the grassroots”, if my perception of the audience reaction at this WTP vetting is any gauge, I think he did quite well. My perception was that he received more frequent and more enthusiastic applause than any of the U.S. Senate candidates who have been vetted so far. Though he is certainly an excellent public speaker, he came off as down-to-earth and very genuine.

Finally, on the question of “How well equipped is the candidate to serve?”, I thought Akers presented himself as being very well equipped. Furthermore, his responses to the Q&A portion of his vetting showed him to be well aligned with the general views of WTP. I, particularly, appreciated his willingness to address “root issues” as well as responding to the more apparent “surface characteristics” of topics that were raised. In my opinion, one of the best examples here was Akers’ recommendation for putting a better system for “legal immigration” into place, as well as addressing the matter of “illegal immigration.”

From my perspective, Paul Akers seemed to be just what he says he is … a Citizen-Servant-Leader. I think he is well deserving of your consideration for support but, as always, I want to encourage you to continue to examine his candidacy for yourself.

We The People-Southwest Washington (WTP) departed from their “standard format” in this week’s candidate vetting event. Instead of vetting a candidate for U.S. Senate, followed by a candidate for U.S. Congress, followed by a candidate for State Representative; they vetted three candidates for State Representative, one after another. These were: Brian Peck, Candidate for Position One in the 17^th Legislative District; Ann Rivers, Candidate for Position One in the 18^th Legislative District; and Paul Harris, Candidate for Position Two in the 17^th Legislative District.

Considering that the set of questions WTP has is very similar for each candidate, within their category, I expected that the format of this particular event might lead to an evening that was a bit monotonous. Thanks to the very different personalities of the three candidates, that turned out to not be the case. With that in mind, I’ve decided to depart from my “standard format”, by offering my observations of each vetting session, as it unfolded.

Brian Peck

Brian is a native of the Pacific Northwest who has experience operating small businesses. Presently, he is the Owner of a 76 gas station in Hazel Dell. To offer a completely personal observation, he strikes me as a salt-of-the-earth sort of guy who you’d be happy to have, as a friend or family member. One of the things that has impressed me about Brian is that, though he has no Republican opponent in his race, he seems to work at his campaign as diligently as others who have one or more Primary opponents.

It seemed to me that Brian Peck’s opening remarks for his vetting session revealed something significant about him, as a person and as a candidate. I’ve had enough one-on-one contact with Brian to know that he’s quite comfortable participating in a thoughtful conversation. Although his opening remarks were well thought out, Peck seemed a bit stiff and it was obvious that he was reading the comments he had prepared. I know that seems like a negative but, for me, Brian’s opening remarks netted out as a positive. I have no doubt that he will become more and more comfortable with speaking opportunities. But he is, obviously, not a Career-Politician and though presentations of this sort don’t come easily for him, he remains determined to step up and do his part for the betterment of his community. That was, also, evident in the content of Peck’s opening remarks. I, especially, appreciated his small business owner’s perspective on evidence of the need for improvement in our government when he said, “When a private business fails, it’s gone. When government fails, they raise taxes.”

Generally, Brian Peck’s responses to WTP’s set of questions, as well as to the questions posed by those selected from the audience, showed him as being well aligned with the views of WTP. With that said, when Peck was asked if he would support the repeal of the 17^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, he said he would not be in favor of that. I, for one, appreciated Peck being unwilling to be career-politician-vague on an issue where his view didn’t match up with the view held by many WTP participants. I felt that Brian was strongest with his observations about cutting middle and upper management in government agencies, as a most likely path for cutting government spending. Also, he made a good case for strengthening Washington State’s Initiative and Referendum process by giving measures passed a four-year-life to inhibit the legislature in circumventing the will of the people.

In closing, Brian reminded the audience that he has been running his campaign for a year, he reminded them of the values he holds that led him to become a candidate and he assured them that they can rely on there being no change to the values he holds if he is elected to office. Based on what I know of Brian Peck, I accept that closing statement.

Ann Rivers

Have you ever had an experience when you were presented with a package that seemed to be nicely wrapped but what you found inside the package was very different from what you thought you might expect to find, based on the packaging? That seems like a good metaphor for my observation of Ann Rivers’ vetting session with WTP. Some of this was the result of the difference between how she said things versus the substance of what she said. And another part of this, for me, was that there was a backdrop of questions about Ann Rivers I’ve heard “floating around” WTP. This was similar to the circumstances I described in my article entitled A Few “Sparks” Fly In Vetting Of Jaime Herrera, Candidate For U.S. Congress. Although I didn’t expect all of the questions related to Ann Rivers to be fully addressed, as they were with Jaime Herrera, I did expect “sparks” to fly over some of these concerns and I was looking forward to hearing Rivers address them. To my complete surprise, none of these questions were raised. So, before going on about the vetting session itself, I think it’s appropriate for me to outline the issues I’ve heard, at least the ones that seem to have been substantiated.

-        Organized Labor’s Support for Rivers – During the appointment process to replace former State Representative Richard Curtis (the process that ended up appointing Jaime Herrera), Cowlitz County Commissioner (D) Kathleen Johnson commented that she “has never seen so many members of organized labor come lobby for a Republican candidate” and that they are “confident that Rivers would work across the aisle and represent their interests.” These statements can be heard on the audio archive at the Cowlitz County Courthouse. You can also hear this audio on a “more entertaining” link I was sent – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGW7L0wkLHE.

-        Rivers’ Loyalty to Party Affiliation – Magnifying the questions raised by the preceding bullet-point, at a Battle Ground School District Board meeting on May 30^th of 2008, Rivers stated that she has “distanced (herself) from the Republican Party” and that she has “taken a middle-ground approach”, when she was asked how she is involved with the Republican party. This is substantiated by the minutes of that meeting.

Needless to say, since these concerns weren’t raised at this week’s WTP Vetting event, I’m hoping they will be at some event in the near future. As I said in my article about the questions related to Jaime Herrera that caused “sparks” to fly, these questions need to be addressed. Hopefully, like Herrera, Rivers will acknowledge this and she’ll welcome the opportunity to speak to these issues.

When it came to addressing the questions that Rivers was asked in her vetting session, her answers seemed quite polished and aimed at being in alignment with the views of WTP. However, several of her answers, while packaged in a seemingly pleasing way, ended up seeming hollow or not ringing true. When Rivers was asked if she was in favor of Washington State implementing an illegal immigration policy similar to the one being implemented in Arizona, she said she would “look at” that. To me, that seems like a career-politician-vague answer. When she was asked “the purpose of government according to the Constitution”, Rivers said, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Of course, that’s an answer that can make any American feel all warm and fuzzy but that’s from the Declaration of Independence, not our Constitution. Of course, when Rivers was asked about accepting campaign donations from Unions, though she said that she wouldn’t, I had to wonder about Organized Labor’s support of Rivers, according to Kathleen Johnson.

Ann Rivers’ closing comments were presented as professionally as were her opening remarks and her responses to all questions. Of course, I’m looking forward to hearing her address the concerns I mentioned above, to complete my impression of her as a candidate.

Paul Harris

Paul is a longtime resident of Southwest Washington and the 17^th Legislative District. He has owned and operated a business here and he, in fact, has run for office on previous occasions. With that said, he strikes me as anything but a Career Politician. Since, like me, he is a Grandfather, maybe he’s a little easier for me to connect with than some. I guess I’d describe him as a WYSIWYG sort of guy and I like that. When he talks about his motives for getting involved, politically, they sound similar to mine. The way I would put it is that it seems we’ve both experienced our own personal “Salad Days”, as our nation did likewise. Now, things are not so good for our nation and we want to restore the opportunity for our children and our grandchildren to have their “Salad Days” too.

Since Harris was the third candidate to be vetted at this week’s event, he got to experience the same thing that previous candidates who have gone third experienced – i.e. a significant portion of the attendees had already gone home. But, due to what seems to be Paul’s energetic “can do” attitude, that didn’t seem to detract from his vetting session. His responses to the questions posed, both by the WTP Panel and by those selected from the audience, all seemed to be in alignment with the general views of WTP. I particularly liked the way he drilled down into the topic of State Revenues to illustrate that “our State Legislature just didn’t do the job this year, in terms of taking the steps necessary to live within a Budget.” Later, in response to a question about breaking government employee unions, he pointed out a significant instance of the State Legislature’s fiscal irresponsibility, in honoring union contracts which the State can not fund. And, I had to appreciate his candor on the topic of Washington State’s Initiative and Referendum process when he mentioned the current “Vote the Bums Out on I-960!” movement and he stated that’s exactly what we should do … “Vote the Bums out!”

Paul Harris is still in the early stages of his candidacy. He pointed that out in his closing comments. He, also, reiterated something he had said in response to a question from the audience – i.e. he will be a Conservative voice for us in Olympia but, while he will give it his all, he can only be truly effective if we send more Conservatives along with him, to make up a majority in our State Legislature. To that, I say, “Amen Brother!”

Have you ever been to a baseball game where a lot of fans left the ballpark early and ended up missing the best part of the game? This past Tuesday evening’s We The People (WTP) Candidate Vetting was a bit like that. That’s not to say that the vetting sessions for U.S. Senate Candidate, Art Coday and U.S. Congress Candidate, Jaime Herrera, weren’t interesting. They certainly were. But the “Closing Act” was Jon Russell; Candidate for State Representative in Washington’s 18^th Legislative District and Russell delivered the evening’s most stirring performance. Unfortunately, nearly half of the attendees present earlier in the evening had already gone home.

In writing about two previous WTP Vetting Sessions of candidates for Washington State Representative, I’ve offered observations about room for improvement in the process. After this most recent event, I’d add to that by saying that the “room for improvement” lies as much with participants as it does with the process. In fact, at this point, in this election cycle, I’d argue for not changing the process, at least not for State Representative Candidates in Washington’s 18^th Legislative District. Making improvements now would be unfair to those who have already gone through the current vetting process. For future election cycles, however, my recommendation is for WTP to conduct the vetting of State Candidates separately from Federal Candidates. Furthermore, I’d suggest that the venue for vetting a State Candidate should actually be in that candidate’s related Legislative District. In case you don’t know, all three State Candidates who have been vetted so far are candidates in the 18^th District but the venue being used by WTP is in the 49^th District.

Generally speaking, my concern about the above-mentioned “room for improvement” is that it has resulted in a seeming lack of energy in the State vetting sessions, compared to the Federal vetting sessions. Of course, as I noted above, nearly half of the attendees present for the Federal sessions, at this latest event, didn’t stick around for the State session. Obviously, those who didn’t stick around for the two previous State vetting sessions, took their energy home with them and that seemed to unfairly diminish each candidates overall performance. Surprisingly, although Jon Russell had to confront these same circumstances, the negative impact wasn’t so noticeable. The candidate’s level of energy seemed to exceed that of the Federal candidates vetted earlier, as did his enthusiasm for exploring the specifics of solutions to challenges our communities are presently facing. And, though nearly half of the attendees present earlier had departed, the frequency and volume of applause seemed equal to or greater than that which accompanied the two earlier vetting sessions.

With all this said, let me get to details of Jon Russell’s vetting. First, when it comes to telling you about Jon’s background, you should know that I’m being careful not to tell you more than you may want to know. You see, I probably know Jon better than any of the other candidates being vetted by WTP. In fact, when he was running for U.S. Congress, I was honored to have him ask me to serve as his Campaign Manager. And, when I can, I help out, as a Volunteer, in his current campaign. So, I won’t pretend to be unbiased about this candidate. However, I do try to temper that. The approach I take parallels the instructions you get from a Judge when you’re called for Jury Duty. Typically, that involves being asked to commit to being “fair and impartial” but you’re not expected to “leave your life experience outside the courtroom.”

Jon Russell is the Owner of Columbia Gorge Medical Center, an urgent and family care clinic pioneering a business model aimed at serving the uninsured and underinsured in the community. Jon is, also, Mayor Pro Tem in the City of Washougal. Russell was first appointed to his City Council in 2006, he was elected to that position in 2007 and he was re-elected in 2009. Jon and his Wife, Sarah, make their home in Washougal, along with their Daughters, Eve and Emma.

“Look at how far we’ve come in a year!” That’s what Russell said in his opening remarks, about WTP, noting that WTP’s second meeting was held at his clinic. Considering that his connection with WTP goes back to its beginnings, that he rarely misses attending a WTP event and his regular involvement in many other community organizations, Russell’s “Ability to connect with the grassroots” is pretty obvious.

Russell’s opening remarks, also, provided evidence of this “Candidate’s motives for running.” He encouraged attendees that the cause WTP stands for is “A fight worth having!” I was, particularly, taken with the example he gave of the sort of “fight” that he’s given, as a City Legislator, that he wants to take to Olympia. With a recent matter, where a State Mandate required that his City levy fines against local business for non-compliance with State regulations that would cripple businesses, the City agreed to comply … by levying fines in the amount of $1! In addition to Russell’s motives seeming to be passionate about “fighting” to get our communities back on course, his motives don’t seem to be self-serving. The best indication here was probably his answer to a question I got to ask, as one of the attendees selected for that purpose. My question was about Term Limits. In brief, Russell’s view is that Washington State Representatives should be limited to four terms (eight years) and he’s imposing that limit on himself.

What I really liked about the Q&A portion of Jon Russell’s vetting, which tends to provide the most evidence of “How well equipped is the candidate to serve?”, is that he offered specifics for solutions, rather than just agreeing on negative aspects of our sitting government. Instead of just complaining about “strings” that come with Federal “stimulus” funds, Russell says State Legislators must have the courage to “Say no to stimulus spending.” Beyond just complaining about our State’s out-of-control budget, our Legislators must find specific ways to bring the budget under control. Candidate Russell recommends starting with the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), where a full 1/3 of the State Budget lies. And, he goes on to address the need for those who are getting “a hand up” to have some “skin in the game” and help reduce State budget requirements by paying whatever share that they can afford. In terms of steps that State government can take to “get out of the way” of business growth, Russell points specifically at the B&O Tax and at Washington’s User Taxes. Furthermore, Jon Russell isn’t career-politician-vague about his stance on critical issues like Crime and Public Safety. When asked if he supports the use of convicts to provide labor (along the lines of Sheriff Joe’s programs in Maricopa County, AZ), Russell answers “yes” and he endorses the present use of convicts at Washington’s Larch Mountain corrections facility (located in the 18^th District). Beyond this, Russell states his belief that there is appropriate application to bring back a form of “Hard Labor” for convicts and he supports the need for a Death Penalty.

Presently, there are six Republican Candidates running for State Representative in Washington’s 18^th Legislative District. I’ve been open about the fact that Jon Russell is the candidate I support and I’ve offered you my observations on his vetting. I hope you find that helpful. But I want to close by giving you the same encouragement Jon Russell offered in his opening remarks at this week’s WTP Vetting event. He encouraged attendees that the cause WTP stands for is “A fight worth having!” That’s not just his fight nor is it just my fight … it’s our fight so don’t let your part go undone and don’t let anyone else do your part for you. Stay involved. Examine each of these candidates for yourself. Make your own decision about which one you will support. Then, get out there and provide all the support you can.

This week’s We The People (WTP) vetting of Jaime Herrera, Republican Candidate for U.S. Congress (WA-03), saw a few “sparks” fly, as a result of questions posed by a couple of attendees. Although this added a bit to the “entertainment value” of the event, in the end, Herrera’s performance seemed to validate her front-runner status in this race.

Before going on with the details of this vetting session, in case you’re not familiar with Jaime Herrera, let me tell you a bit about her background. She presently serves as State Representative for Washington’s 18^th Legislative District. Herrera was first appointed to that position in 2007 and she was elected to the position in 2008. Prior to becoming a Washington State Representative, Jaime Herrera worked in Washington DC, as a Senior Legislative Aide for the U.S. Congressional Representative from Washington State’s 5^th District, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Outside of Jaime Herrera’s time in Washington DC, her life has been in Washington State. She graduated from Vancouver’s Prairie High School and she earned her Bachelor’s Degree from UW. She and her Husband, Dan, presently make their home in Camas. As a nearly-lifetime-resident of Southwest Washington, Herrera speaks easily to the issues concerning her fellow-residents. Based on her opening remarks at this vetting session, not only is she comfortable in addressing these matters, her views on them seem very well aligned with those of WTP.

The fact that Herrera is a nearly-lifetime-resident of Southwest Washington also seems to be at the heart of this “Candidate’s motives for running”. When she states that “DC is on the wrong track”, she goes on to express her genuine concern for the impact that’s having on the area where she grew up, its current residents and its future residents … including her yet-to-be-born children. One aspect that I find refreshing about Herrera, that seems to be folded in with her attitude about running for this office, is her candor. A good example is that she doesn’t shy away from acknowledging the importance of being a good listener, to a young person who is still in the fairly early stages of gaining experience. Accepting that, along with the fact that she would have limited clout, as a Freshman in Congress, she seems determined to do all that she can to be a catalyst for correcting the course that “DC is on”, for the benefit of those she hopes to represent.

As has been the case with each of the other candidates vetted by WTP, I found the Q&A portion of Jaime Herrera’s vetting session to be most helpful in answering the question, “How well equipped is the candidate to serve?” Generally, Herrera seemed well versed on the subject matter and her responses were well aligned with the views of WTP. She, apparently, was listening closely to comments made by Candidate for U.S. Senate, Dr. Art Coday, whose vetting preceded Herrera’s; because she noted her agreement with his points regarding the Federal Reserve – i.e. More is needed than just auditing the Fed, it was wrong for Congress to give their responsibility over to the Fed and that needs to be reversed. Likewise, her views on “cost-cutting with federal agencies” seemed to be more thoughtful and comprehensive than views expressed by others. Whereas some candidates have pointed to a few specific federal agencies they would target for elimination, Herrera agreed that there are agencies that should be eliminated but she also noted that her experience indicates there is opportunity to get rid of duplication, waste and abuse in most government agencies.

What I’ve said, up to now, about Herrera’s response during the Q&A portion of her vetting session, applies to both the segment where she was asked questions by the WTP Panel, as well as the segment where she was asked questions by attendees, selected by lottery. Since the “sparks” I’ve mentioned resulted from questions by two attendees, I think it’s appropriate for me to offer my observations about each of these.

For some time, I’ve heard questions “floating around” WTP about Herrera accepting a donation from SEIU and about her support of HB 1329, involving unionization for workers in daycare centers. As it turned out, the first attendee selected by lottery asked both of those questions. Frankly, I thought that was an unfortunate coincidence. With that said, I have absolutely no question about the integrity of those in charge of WTP. That is rock-solid. And, the questions needed to be addressed. Herrera acknowledged that herself and said that she was thankful to have the opportunity to speak to these issues. Her responses were: (1) She did receive a $500 donation from SEIU for her 2008 campaign for State Representative. Fundraising is critical to being competitive and regaining the U.S. Congressional seat from the Democrats. So far, her campaign donations are nearing $200,000. Her vote can’t be bought and it certainly doesn’t make sense that it would be bought for $500. (2) She supported HB 1329 because she saw it as being in the best interest of owners of daycare centers in her district and it did not make it mandatory for workers to join the union. Furthermore, it’s her responsibility to represent all her constituents and many of them are union members.

The final “sparks” in this vetting session actually involved an individual who was bent on attacking Representative Herrera’s character, rather than getting a question answered. Ironically, this attack ended up revealing positive aspects of Ms. Herrera’s character. The attendee involved here is an individual I only know as someone who seems to spend their entire life on looking for reasons to denigrate candidates he doesn’t support and if at all possible, to do so in a way that might reflect well upon a candidate he does favor. Initially, he just spouted reasons he didn’t feel that he could trust Herrera. To Herrera’s credit; she listened patiently, she gently acknowledged the individual as one holding beliefs of a non-supporter and she caringly but firmly asked him to pose a question. I was, especially, impressed with Herrera’s mature and level-headed conduct here. Surely she knows that this individual wasn’t really looking for an answer and that, in fact, there is no answer he would find acceptable from her nor are there any circumstances she could offer that would lead him to be a supporter. Finally, he asked her about her vote to use the $229 million in Washington State’s “rainy day” fund, to help balance the State Budget. Herrera’s response was one that makes complete sense to anyone who’s ever been in a leadership position, especially in business. Often, a leader is facing a list of alternatives that contains no “happy answers” but one of them must be chosen. In this case, the list of alternatives was under the control of the Democrat majority in Olympia and Herrera’s alternative to utilizing the “rainy day” fund was to raise taxes. Especially considering the facts that both the State Legislative District she represents, as well as the U.S. Congressional District that she’s running to represent, have both been suffering the ills of a nearly 14% unemployment rate, I’d say it seems like a “rainy day” to me and that she made the right choice. Moreover, Herrera stated that she knew, in making that choice, she would “take a political hit” but that doing what is right for her constituents is her priority.

In closing, Candidate Herrera assured attendees that “no one will work harder” for us in the U.S. Congress, if we elect to send her there and she reiterated her commitment to listen to the will of her constituents. As always, I hope that my observations are helpful to you in deciding whether or not to support this candidate. And, as always, I want to encourage you to continue to examine this candidate on your own and arrive at your own conclusions.

This week, We The People-Southwest Washington (WTP) vetted Arthur Coday, Jr., M.D. as a Candidate for U.S. Senate. Dr. Coday is the fourth Candidate for U.S. Senate to be vetted by WTP, so far. I’m pleased to say that, for me, this makes “four out of four” in terms of candidates who have presented themselves for vetting by WTP, who offer clearly different and better alternatives to Patty Murray, the incumbent Senator, running for reelection.

At the outset of Dr. Coday’s vetting session, I probably had less on his background than I’d had on all the other candidates who WTP had vetted up to that point. To some degree, this was due to the fact that I was pretty familiar with the other candidates scheduled for vetting that same evening and I hadn’t taken as much time for research as I had for previous vetting sessions. I, at least, had spent enough time on the Art Coday For U.S. Senate Website – http://codayforussenate.com/ – that I recognized both Dr. Coday and his Campaign Manager when I saw them.

My lack of familiarity with Dr. Coday actually seemed beneficial, as I listened to his introductory remarks. Since I had few preconceived notions about him, I had more of a sense that I was genuinely starting to become acquainted with the man. He started by saying that, “We … We The People … are the best hope for our nation to avoid tyranny.” He went on to note the importance of remembering the essential role of Christian Faith in our nation and its foundation. In doing this, he quoted Lincoln saying, “I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere to go.” And, he quoted 2 Corinthians 3:17, “… where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” Of course, I don’t speak for the whole of WTP but this was a great way for Dr. Coday to start connecting with me at the “grassroots” and to get me on board with his notion that it’s time for our nation to have a “Second Revolution”.

As Dr. Coday reiterated and expanded on aspects of his background that I had picked up from his campaign website, I started to get an idea of this “Candidate’s motives for running.” The key quality I look for, as a positive in a “Candidate’s motives for running”, is what I call “Having the heart of a servant”. Though it’s what I want to hear about from a candidate, it always seems a bit odd to me when they actually speak about indications from their background that they do have “the heart of a servant”. It’s a little like hearing someone say that they’re proud of how humble they are. Of course, that’s the case with all candidates, not just Art Coday. So, with that understood, I’ll say that one of the most significant indicators, for me, that this candidate has “the heart of a servant” is that, in order to be able to afford to continue to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients, he closed the office of his medical practice and started treating those patients in their homes. I, also, appreciated the fact that, at the end of the evening; after he and two other candidates had been vetted, with many attendees leaving early, with a three-hour return-drive to Seattle ahead of him; I found Art Coday at the backdoor of the venue, still shaking hands and engaging in conversation.

Although I, mostly, look to the Q&A portion of these vetting sessions for answers to the question, “How well equipped is the candidate to serve?”, observing Dr. Coday’s behavior in-person helped me with this too. At first, Coday struck me as maybe being a bit weak, as a presenter. But, I found that I enjoyed his presentation, including his good humor … I really liked his referring to Death Tax as “Taxation without respiration”. Eventually, I recognized that he was just a different sort of presenter … at least, different from me. I’m a Sales guy. So, I thrive on presentations. For me, getting to speak to someone or to present to a group is an end-goal. Coday reminded me a lot of a dear childhood friend I have who grew up to become an M.D. When I talk to him, I can tell he’s engaged in the conversation and that he cares about me but he seems to be almost distracted by something beyond that. With my friend, I’ve come to know that this “distraction” is that his focus is on learning what he can do to help me. I sum up that difference in him as being “wired differently” … the difference that led him to become a Doc. And, that’s the same sense I got about Dr. Coday. When you think about it, just that makes him a better choice to send to the Senate than a guy like me. I’d be happy just to get to speak to the VPOTUS and the other 99 Senators. Coday is more likely to speak to those folks in order to learn how to take actions that are helpful to us folks.

As usual, the Q&A was helpful. I can’t think of any of Coday’s responses that weren’t solid and well aligned with the views of WTP. His perspective on the Federal Reserve was very enlightening. It seems to me that, typically, candidates will speak to the need for an audit of the Fed. Dr. Coday pointed out that, in establishing the Fed, Congress had actually given away responsibility which he believes they should reclaim. Likewise, on the subject of “cutting spending”, I appreciated him pointing out the cost savings that could come from things like our nation making English its official language.

The final question addressed by Art Coday was a question that he says is the most common one to be asked on the campaign trail – i.e. “How can we know that, if we send you to DC, we can trust you to do what you’re saying you’ll do?” Dr. Coday offered some specific responses to that but, generally, he said, “Look at my life.” And, I recommend that you do just that, as one of the steps in your assessment of whether or not this is the candidate you want to support for election as one of our U.S. Senators. I hope some of my observations are helpful to you in that process. As I said earlier, I see Art Coday and the other three candidates for U.S. Senate who WTP has vetted so far, as being clearly different and better alternatives to Patty Murray. However, it’s up to you to determine if you agree with that and if so, to determine which one of the alternative candidates you’re willing to support.

This week, for the second time, the series of Candidate Vetting sessions being held by We The People – Southwest Washington, included the vetting of a candidate for the Washington State Legislature. The candidate in this instance was Shannon Barnett, who is running for State Representative in Washington’s 18^th Legislative District.

One of my main observations about the first “We The People” Vetting of a candidate for Washington State Legislature was that there was apparent room for improvement in the process. Although I thought the process seemed to be a bit better this time around, for me, the most noticeable aspect of this vetting session was that there remains significant room for improvement. This time around, the Q&A did seem to be better oriented for a State Candidate versus a Federal Candidate. However, there just seemed to be a lack of energy in this session, especially compared to the preceding sessions, one for a U.S. Congressional Candidate and one for a U.S. Senatorial Candidate. Perhaps this is the result of Federal Candidates being given more importance than State Candidates. If so, that seems counter to the purposes of an organization that places great value on protecting States Rights. Or, it could just be a function of logistics. I’ve noticed that the vetting performances I’ve found to be best have each come from the candidate who was “first-up” on a given evening. As a suggestion, We The People might want to consider mixing up the sequence in which they vet candidates rather than always going in a sequence of U.S. Senate Candidate, followed by U.S. Congress Candidate, followed by State Legislature Candidate.

With that said, let me fill you in on my observations of Shannon Barnett and his performance in this vetting session. When it comes to addressing Shannon’s “Background”, I think it’s important for me to note that I’ve had a bit more personal contact with Shannon than I’ve had with the other candidates who’ve been vetted, up to now. Most of that personal contact came during the time that I served as Campaign Manager for a U.S. Congressional Candidate, who is now also running for State Representative in Washington’s 18^th Legislative District. One related anecdote, that I really like because it indicates what a “small-town” community we live in, is the coincidence I discovered that the Barber I go to in Vancouver was Shannon’s Barber before he married and moved to Cowlitz County. She and I agree that the way Shannon presents himself on his Campaign Website is pretty accurate – i.e. A “good guy” who was raised in this community and in addition to living and working here, he’s been active in local Republican politics as well as several community organizations.

Of course, the quality of being a “good guy” who was raised in this community serves Shannon well in terms of his “Ability to connect with the grassroots”. However, I think that what I mentioned earlier about the seeming lack of energy in this session took its toll even here. Especially in this case, I think that’s a reflection of the need for improvement in the vetting process and not in this candidate.

As I recall, in Shannon Barnett’s opening remarks at this vetting session, he said something about changes in our community in recent times meaning that he and his family are no longer able to live life “as they see fit.” That seems to be a good summary of this “Candidate’s motives for running”.

Once again, I was looking to Barnett’s responses to the questions he was asked, during this vetting session, to help answer the overall question of “How well equipped is the candidate to serve?” As I’ve said before, the Q&A at these sessions seems pretty slanted towards criticizing missteps of the sitting government. This doesn’t easily lead to a candidate offering their ideas for positive alternatives and I’d like to hear more of that. In Shannon’s case, some general alternatives were suggested but I think we need to hear our candidates offering more substance. One example here was that, in discussing the need for controlling the State budget, Barnett stated that we need to find ways to reduce spending and that he would not support spending increases. That seems pretty obvious to me but I’d like to hear specifics of proposals on how to do this. And, I’d like to hear proposals that go beyond finding better ways to tinker with the State budget. When asked, “What would be the first bill you would sponsor?”, Shannon said he would sponsor a bill addressing prevailing wage rates for State bids. No doubt, that would be worthwhile but it seems to me that having the State Legislature do all it can to restore vitality to our communities and their businesses should be a far greater priority than working on one area of inefficiency in the way our State government operates. Generally, I did sense that Barnett had a respectable understanding of the issues he was presented with and that his views were in agreement with those of We The People. There is one area that I had hoped to explore here but my lottery ticket was not drawn and I didn’t get to ask my question. Although I know Shannon takes a strong position on Public Safety and Crime, one thing that doesn’t seem congruent with this is that I think I’ve heard him say that he is opposed to the Death Penalty. I’d like to hear more from him on this, especially since it isn’t in line with my views and I think that may be true for the majority of the We The People population.

Shannon Barnett’s wrap-up to his vetting session included his encouraging those in attendance to continue to scrutinize all the candidates running for office this year. I fully agree with that. More specifically, let me say that my motives for being more involved in the political process now than I ever have been before are precisely matched up with Shannon’s motives in running for office – i.e. Changes in our community in recent times mean that we are no longer able to live life “as we see fit.” In order to effect the positive changes needed here, each of us need to commit to no longer standing idly by and to remain fully involved.

This week, We The People – Southwest Washington held the third session in their semi-monthly candidate vetting series. First-up for this session was David Hedrick, who is running for the seat to represent Washington’s 3^rd Congressional District.

In keeping with my reports on these vetting sessions, up to now, I will offer my observations of what this session seemed to indicate about the candidate relative to: “Ability to connect with the grassroots”, “Candidate’s motives for running” and “How well equipped is the candidate to serve?” However, I’ve decided to add a dimension meant to help those who may not be familiar with each of the many candidates being vetted by We The People. This dimension is what I refer to as “Background” – i.e. an overview of my familiarity with the candidate, going in.

With Hedrick, providing “Background” is a little easier due to what I refer to as his “YouTube moment with Brian Baird.” It’s hard for me to imagine anyone having enough interest to read this article who isn’t also familiar with this “moment”. So, I won’t elaborate on this. However, if you’re not familiar with this “moment”, just Google it and you’ll find a YouTube clip from incumbent Congressman Brian Baird’s Town Hall last August. You’ll, also, find related clips from numerous radio and TV broadcasts. In short, David Hedrick is a USMC Veteran whose number was drawn in the lottery to question Baird and he used the opportunity to boldly confront the Congressman with views held by many of Baird’s unhappy constituents. I have to admit that all this had me going into Hedrick’s vetting session with a bit of a bias, thinking that Hedrick’s moment may have just “gone to his head” and that his candidacy might not be much more than him extending his “15 minutes of fame.” This bias was augmented by my last visit to Candidate Hedrick’s website, prior to the vetting session and still seeing a lot of reference to this “moment” along with details of how Hedrick differs from Baird … who, last December 9^th, announced that he won’t be running for reelection. While this ongoing theme colored much of Hedrick’s vetting session and I could understand why others might continue with the bias I had going in, I felt Hedrick’s performance indicated that he’s matured in his candidacy to a point where he should, at least, be taken more seriously than one who is just extending his “15 minutes of fame.”

Of course, regardless of anyone’s predisposition regarding Hedrick’s “moment”, relative to the seriousness of his candidacy, that “moment” leaves no question about his “Ability to connect with the grassroots.” He does that easily. As alluded to above, the biggest remaining questions concern whether there is substance to Hedrick’s candidacy beyond his “moment.”

I think it turns out that Hedrick’s “moment” is also a good indicator of this “Candidate’s motives for running.” His “moment” certainly seemed to come from the heart and I have to say, so did everything he had to say at this vetting session. He doesn’t seem to be in this race for what he can get out of it for himself. Rather, he seems to be interested in making a positive difference in America, especially the America his children will inherit. This was augmented by Hedrick pointing out that he has chosen an extremely challenging route for his candidacy in not accepting any special interest money. Likewise, this was amplified with Hedrick indicating that he will limit himself to serving no more than three terms. And, I think the strongest indication here is David Hedrick’s decision to run as a Republican rather than as a Third-Party Candidate … something that would probably be to Hedrick’s benefit more so than any other candidate in the race.

The remaining question then is “How well equipped is the candidate to serve?” It seemed to me that Hedrick’s responses to the questions presented by the We The People panel, along with the questions of those selected from the audience by lottery, were the best indication here. In my estimation, Hedrick seemed to have a good command of the issues that were raised. Furthermore, his perspectives seemed to be well aligned with those of We The People and he appeared to have a decent understanding of the issues relative to the U.S. Constitution. To be fair, I think that much of the Q&A at these sessions is aimed at the missteps of our sitting government but I would feel more comfortable with Hedrick’s candidacy if I’d heard him offer more on his ideas for positive alternatives. And, I have to admit that I was a little put off by Hedrick’s comment in his wrap-up that he wants to take his “YouTube moment with Brian Baird” with him to Congress to “fight” for us. Maybe it’s just a personal thing with me but I’m more interested in having a Representative who is willing to stand up for us (as David did in his “moment”) when necessary but who is, otherwise, there to “work” for us with his colleagues, to persuade them about the positive alternatives he’s bringing to the table.

As I said earlier, I felt that David Hedrick’s performance at this vetting session indicated that he’s matured in his candidacy to a point where he should, at least, be taken more seriously than one who is just extending his “15 minutes of fame.” But, as always, I want to encourage you to examine this candidate on your own and arrive at your own conclusions.

This past Tuesday evening, for the first time, the series of Candidate Vetting sessions being held by We The People – Southwest Washington, included the vetting of a candidate for the Washington State Legislature … Brandon Vick, Candidate for State Representative in Washington’s 18^th Legislative District. Although I’ve been very open about my enthusiasm for what We The People is accomplishing with this Candidate Vetting process, the fact that this was their first time vetting a candidate at this level seemed apparent. I’m not sure if this was a “first time” for Vick, in undergoing this sort of vetting, but it seemed that might be the case too. But, to be fair, reporting on this unique (up to now) event is a “first time” for me as well. I guess that just acknowledges that, as a part of the growing “Tea Party Movement”, We The People should be expected to experience some growing pains and as part of We The People, Brandon Vick and I should expect the same. With that understood, let me report what I learned from this vetting session.

As has been my practice, in reporting on these sessions, let me start with my view of this candidate’s “ability to connect with the ‘grassroots’ – i.e. the people who make up We The People.” Although I didn’t see Brandon Vick at the We The People rally, held outside Brian Baird’s office earlier on the same day as this vetting session, I have seen Vick at other We The People meetings and I’ve been around him at other events. At those times, he seemed to come across as an every-day, salt-of-the-earth kind of guy. I think this came through in his vetting session too, in a way that is obviously genuine. In other words, Vick is pretty much of a “grassroots” kind of guy (and that isn’t intended as a pun, aimed at the fact that he works in his family’s landscaping business), so it’s not a challenge for him to connect with other “grassroots” folks.

When it comes to the question of “The candidate’s motives for running?”, my sense is that Vick’s motives have some similarity to my motives for my current involvement in politics. He expressed it as, “fightin’ for values.” I express it as, “being unwilling to stand idly by while ‘they’ continue to ‘flush away’ the wonderful America I was blessed to be born and raised in.” Sort of the same things, mine just has 40 years or so (I think Brandon Vick is in his mid-twenties) of added impetus. Regardless, much like me, Vick doesn’t seem to be in this for himself. He seems to be in it to preserve our great nation, for all of us, as well as for his yet-to-be-born children and grandchildren.

The question of “How well equipped is the candidate to serve?” is the area where the “first time” issues I mentioned earlier seemed more evident. My impression here is that, since We The People is very Constitution-focused – i.e. U.S. Constitution – there’s just more work to be done in getting the vetting process to fit a State candidate versus a Federal candidate. If I’m right, that may have put this candidate at somewhat of a disadvantage. That’s not to say that none of the questioning was meaningful nor that none of his responses gave a positive indication of his preparedness for the office he’s seeking. Overall, I thought the Q&A was productive and that Vick presented himself adequately. A couple of good examples here included discussion of dealing with Unfunded Mandates and the “strings” that can go along with accepting “stimulus money”. But, it did seem to me that some areas were exposed where Vick will need to spend more time. As an example, there was a question about supporting Federal legislation to return some lands to the States. The candidate’s response (paraphrasing) was that he “hasn’t studied it” but “it sounds good.” With all that said, I don’t see anything in Brandon Vick that, in time, would prevent him from becoming well equipped to serve in an elected position.

In closing, let me reiterate, what I said in the first article I wrote in this Candidate Vetting series … “I don’t speak for We The People”. These are my views and just as I don’t mean to speak for We The People, I don’t mean to tell you that my views should be your views. My intent is to share my observations of the results being produced by the relentlessly patriotic work being done by We The People – Southwest Washington and to encourage you to do your part, including giving each of these candidates your scrutiny and arriving at your own conclusions.