During the 2010 election cycle, Wisconsinites received a revelation: The members of our state’s congressional delegation, we learned, had an “Unwritten Rule.” According to Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R, 5th CD), members of said congressional delegation, Republicans and Democrats together, turned out to be colluding by not endorsing candidates of their own party who were running in the districts of opposition incumbents.

Let that information sink in for a moment…

Wisconsin Republicans, such as Paul Ryan (1st CD) and Jim Sensenbrenner, were refusing to endorse Republican candidates running in districts held by Gwen Moore (4th CD), Tammy Baldwin (2nd CD), and other über-lefties—that is, in territory where Republican candidates needed more help, not less, to get elected. Instead, Republican incumbents said, “Sorry. You’re on your own.”

Why…?

Because if Ryan and Sensenbrenner, for example, endorsed Republican candidates in Moore’s and Baldwin’s districts, Moore and Baldwin would endorse Democratic candidates in theirs. Well, now, that would get downright un-neighborly, wouldn’t it…?

So, Wisconsin’s Republican and Democratic legislators work hand in hand to ensure that none of them has to face any stiff or unpleasant competition. Evidently, for Ryan and Sensenbrenner, protecting their own seats in Washington comes first, while standing on principle faithfully to advance a true conservative platform in an election cycle comes a very distant last.

Not a Myth

There are some who will claim that the Unwritten Rule is all still just hearsay. In fact, I’ve heard a number of people make that claim.

It’s not.

Jim Sensenbrenner frankly acknowledged the Unwritten Rule last year in explaining why he would not be endorsing Dan Sebring, a solid, conservative candidate working to defeat Gwen Moore in the 4th District. The explanation was made to Sebring personally, though others were around to hear Sensenbrenner’s spiel, including Sebring’s campaign manager, Jessica Strautmann. Sensenbrenner stated that both he and Paul Ryan had agreements with Moore not to endorse in each others’ districts.

One wonders whether Sensenbrenner made this admission because the political ruling class of which he’s a confirmed member is just so bold now that they don’t care at this point whether us poor schlubs in the party rank-and-file know they’re colluding or if it was sheer stupidity on his part. It’s a serious toss up in my mind, though in Sensenbrenner’s case I lean toward door #2.

At least one other candidate, Chad Lee (2nd CD), was clued in to similar reasons for Ryan’s refusal to endorse his campaign against Tammy “Rah-Rah for Socialism” Baldwin.

More evidence…?

Of all the Wisconsin Republican congressional candidates running in multiple districts in the 2010 election cycle, only one, Sean Duffy (7th CD), received endorsements from Republican members of the congressional delegation. Democrat David Obey had already announced he would retire at the end of his term. There was no incumbent to offend in District 7.

Not a Help

Ultimately, only Duffy in District 7 and Reid Ribble in District 8 succeeded in their bids for congressional office. Sebring and Lee both lost mightily. Dan Kapanke, a Wisconsin Assemblyman, came very close to removing Ron Kind in the 3rd CD but couldn’t close the deal.

Now, you can argue that the candidates who lost would have done so regardless of endorsements from Ryan or Sensenbrenner. They were running in districts that have been royally gerrymandered. But elections have succeeded on hard ground before. But it may well have helped Republican candidates to build greater visibility and weight in the public eye had those candidates had key endorsements from current congressional representatives. Additional assistance might at least have resulted in a better Republican showing in several districts where races were ultimately lost. I guess we’ll never know, will we…?

You can also argue that at least one candidate was weak to begin with. Lee had a beautiful smile, but not much more than that when you scratched the surface. Candidates like Kapanke, Ribble, and Sebring, though, were definitely nothing to sneeze at and should have had the help of those already holding higher office. Of course, that would have required principle on the part of the individuals holding those higher offices. In that regard, as became abundantly clear, the candidates were already entirely out of luck.

And incidentally, the argument that the candidates might have been harmed by endorsements from Ryan and Sensenbrenner is a pile of dung. Wisconsin candidates came looking for endorsements from the congressional delegation because THEY KNEW those endorsements would help them to gain the profile and weight they would need to compete successfully in difficult territory. If the candidates had NOT asked for the endorsements, that would be another matter. But they did ask and were refused.

Not Principled

I want to be very clear here. protecting yourself and letting good candidates founder so that you can avoid taking any heat in your own district?  So that you can reinforce the safety of your own sorry seat? …That’s cowardly, self-interested, unprincipled sleaze. And as it turns out, I am far from the only one in this state who thinks so.

Enter Wisconsin’s Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC)…

The RLC is a 527 PAC that focuses on keeping the Republican Party honest. When they found out about the Unwritten Rule, they publicly called the Wisconsin congressional delegation’s agreement exactly what it was and is: DEEPLY WRONG.

Now, I know some of you out there reading this are thinking to yourselves, “Hey, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?! Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner are at least Rs. You rock the boat, you risk losing Wisconsin’s Republican majority in Congress. If this deal works for the congressional delegation, then we probably oughta leave it alone.”

But let’s walk this whole thing back a little, shall we?  Let’s see what we’re really talking about here instead of being immediately sucked under by the undertow of fear-based reasoning.

The Unwritten Rule, as we’re now learning, dates back a number of decades before people were quite as aware of the dangers of bad progressive policy as they are now. Wisconsin Republicans and Democrats shook hands on leaving each other alone at election time so that they could work more effectively together in our nation’s Capitol…TO BRING HOME AS MUCH PORK AS POSSIBLE. If that history alone isn’t enough to convince you that this agreement was a bad idea from the start and should go the way of the dodo immediately, I’ve got other reasons.

Not Healthy

Incumbency has become a widespread disease in this nation.

I offer you Exhibit A, a graphic from an American Majority training I’ve attended twice in the past year.

[I highly recommend the presentation, The System, should you decide to look at the whole thing. Be patient; it's a heavy file and can take a few moments to load.]

Note in the graphic that between 2000 and 2008, an incumbent in the U.S. House of Representatives had, on average, at least a 98.3 percent chance of reelection. In most election cycles represented, an incumbent had a 99 or 99.5 percent shot at staying in office. That unfortunate certainty on the part of incumbents is a huge problem.

I hear you protesting again: “But aren’t some incumbents worth keeping around?  If someone’s doing a good job, why SHOULDN’T they stay?  Aren’t we better off keeping them there rather than risking a loss to a liberal?”

It’s instructive to examine briefly the mechanics of incumbency. How it works. What it yields as it becomes more and more entrenched.

I give you Exhibit B: from the same American Majority presentation, a symbol representing the concept of reinforcement. In the actual presentation, the introduction of this symbol is accompanied by the following question: “If you could continue to fold a standard piece of paper in half 30 times, how thick would it be?” The answer, as demonstrated in this handy little table, Exhibit C, is that it would reach into the earth’s atmosphere.

The point?

Every time we repeat an action, we exponentially strengthen its result. Translation: Every time we re-elect an incumbent, we make it that much harder to un-elect them when we decide that might be a good idea. They get comfortable, and our authority over them wanes. Why?  Because they increasingly know that no matter what we do, we probably won’t be able to get rid of them.

Exhibit D, an American Majority illustration of the incumbency cycle, helps us understand what’s REALLY going on here, whatever excuses Mssrs. Ryan and Sensenbrenner might attempt to employ to sweep the truth under the carpet.

This particular graphic is a little hard to read, so allow me to list out the phases that feed one into another…again and again and again:

1. Win primary election
2. Win general election
3. Gain more seniority
4. Gain more influence
5. Participate more in the system of tax, spend, and regulate
6. Gain more campaign contributions
7. Gain more ability to pay for media
8. Reduce the viability of any competition
9. Win primary election…

There it is.  What we already knew in our hearts, laid out plainly for everyone to see: The longer a politician is in Washington, the more compromised by the system they become. It’s what frustrates us all: The minute they get elected, most of them stop worrying about actual principles and start worrying about staying in office.

And then there’s this charming little outcome of the disease called incumbency…

In a redistricting year, congressional leadership, both Republican and Democrat, get to help redraw district lines. And guess how they draw them?  To make seats safer and safer and safer and safer for themselves. So, Paul Ryan’s seat and Jim Sensenbrenner’s seat and Gwen Moore’s seat and Tammy Baldwin’s seat are going to get even harder to challenge. When Paul “Too Big to Fail” Ryan and Jim “REAL ID” Sensenbrenner vote for big-government nonsense—which they do on a fairly regular basis—good luck running another Republican successfully against them. And in districts like the 2nd and the 4th where it’s already a challenge to beat Democrats, it will only become more so. That, too, is a result of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation “working together.” How about we call that what it is, too:

DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF VOTERS

Unless politicians are forced to contend with a real fear of the ballot box in every primary election, they start dictating to us, rather than the other way around.

Let’s be crystal clear:

Anyone who gives the nod to the Wisconsin congressional delegation’s Unwritten Rule is not only allowing but FOSTERING collusion and egregiously strengthening an elite political class.

No More!

In Milwaukee County this year, a resolution was introduced that called on Wisconsin’s congressional delegation finally to disavow the Unwritten Rule.

The resolution is titled and reads as follows:

Eliminate the Wisconsin Delegation’s “Unwritten Role” on Endorsements

WHEREAS the Wisconsin delegation’s “Unwritten Rule,” in which all members of the Wisconsin congressional delegation agree not to support congressional candidates running against incumbents in districts other than their own, has been identified and brought to public attention, and

WHEREAS some members of the Wisconsin congressional delegation have publicly acknowledged the existence of the “Unwritten Rule,” “Gentlemen’s Agreement,” or “Unspoken Rule,” and

WHEREAS the “Unwritten Rule” does not assist in the advancement of Republicans to the House of Representatives, be it now therefore

RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Milwaukee County calls on members of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation to disregard any “Unwritten Rule,” “Gentlemen’s Agreement,” or “Unspoken Rule,” but instead publicly support, endorse, and champion Republican candidates for Congress who are running against Democrat Congressional incumbents, with the intent to help further Republican control within the U.S. House of Representatives.

The resolution passed overwhelmingly. It then went on to the 4th CD caucus where, once again, delegates passed it with much enthusiasm.

At the close of that caucus, the resolution’s author, Michael S. Murphy, Chair of the South Branch of the Milwaukee County party and also Chair of the above-mentioned RLC, was approached by a fellow county chair. He told Mr. Murphy that the resolution would not see the light of day at state convention in May, and that if Mr. Murphy attempted to introduce the resolution from the floor, no one would recognize him. It was not a warning. It was a promise.

Unfortunately, the resolution failed in State Resolutions Committee by a vote of 10-5. Word has it that several members of the committee valiantly defended it, but the majority did not see its value. Some uninformed members, despite all the evidence in the world, claimed that the Unwritten Rule existed only as a figment of Mr. Murphy’s imagination. Others felt it would be “opening up a can of worms” to get rid of it, failing to understand the cycle they were reinforcing.

The resolution must now be introduced from the floor at state convention in order to be brought to the attention of this year’s delegates.

Except, Mr. Murphy has already been informed that he will not be recognized to introduce it.

Someone else will have to carry that torch.

This establishment effort to prevent the party’s rank-and-file from an opportunity to hear a resolution introduced properly from the floor should raise a battle cry from the lips of every grassroots delegate to this year’s State Convention of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. This resolution MUST be introduced, if for no other reason because the establishment is so dead set on burying it and thuggishly attempting to silence its author and supersede the prerogative of delegates to decide for themselves.

Wisconsin’s congressional leadership is run amok.

Wisconsin’s party leadership is run amok (and I’ve got even more to say on this score another day).

Take a stand, principled Wisconsin Republicans!

Be in that convention hall in Wisconsin Dells for the morning session on May 21st.

Make your voices heard.

TAKE BACK YOUR PARTY!

Well, well… Here’s a shocker: Ron Johnson is once again slithering out of too-close-for-comfort alignment with the tea party.

A friend in Wisconsin’s conservative grassroots just drew my attention to a Politico article dated today: January 21st, 2011, 4:10pm. The title of the article…?  Tea Party Favorites Skip Senate Caucus. And who’s prominently mentioned as staying out of the Senate’s newly formed Tea Party Caucus…?  Why none other than RoJo the Recanter…

Johnson said through his spokeswoman Friday that he has no plans of joining the caucus.

“I sprang from the tea party and have great respect for what it represents,” said Johnson in a prepared statement. “The reason I ran for the U.S. Senate was to not only stop the Obama agenda but reverse it. I believe our best chance of doing that is to work towards a unified Republican conference, so that’s where I will put my energy.”

This quote clinches what I have maintained from the start: Johnson USED the veneer of the tea party movement to get elected. He was NEVER OF THE TEA PARTY. It’s really just more of what had already become a familiar pattern in the eyes of grassroots conservative Wisconsinites during the lead-up to Wisconsin’s 2010 primary and general elections.

At the Defending the American Dream Summit held by Americans for Prosperity in March of 2010, Ronny was merrily introducing himself and passing his card around. Billing himself as a tea partier, he let it be known that he was thinking about running for U.S. Senate. There were already clues at that point that he wasn’t what he claimed to be.

Johnson’s tea party story washed even less at Wisconsin’s GOP convention in May, where associates of mine watched him veer conveniently back and forth between pretending to be grassroots and then reassuring establishment types that it was all campaign strategy. No kidding.

How he expected the grassroots to believe he was for real is beyond me. His entire campaign staff and all of the people that came out to support, endorse, and second him at convention were establishment. But hell, that shouldn’t have given anyone pause, should it…?

The crowning glory?  In June, Johnson admitted on camera that he’d read the United States Constitution only a handful of times after deciding to run for office and found it a difficult document to read. However, in an autumn debate with Russ Feingold, he declared himself a long-time reader of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Which do you believe…?

The establishment machine that assisted heavily in passing Johnson off on Wisconsin voters as a “tea party candidate” included none other than then state party chair Reince “the Rigger” Priebus, who, for his duplicitous efforts on this and other fronts has since been duly promoted to the paid position of RNC Chair.

[What a wonderful party we have... What a marvelous party. I feel like drinking champagne. A lot of it. Not to celebrate. No, just to get bloody-well drunk and forget for a few blissful moments that as a member of the GOP, I pay dues to have this insanity foisted on me. I won't, of course, imbibe because I have too much work to do to ensure that this sort of crap continues only over my cold, dead body.]

It was widely whispered in conservative circles during Wisconsin’s primary season that Little Reince was eyeing the role of RNC Chair. It was also widely understood that his golden ticket to moving from state to a paid position at national was booting Russ Feingold out of office and replacing him with a Republican. Any Republican at all, really.

Now, did I like Russ Feingold?  HELL NO!  Did I want to keep him in office?  Triple HELL NO!  But did I want to see a walking Napoleon Complex replaced with an incompetent numbskull who wouldn’t know the Bill of Rights if it bit him in the ass…?  Not so much, really.

In conversations with people I know personally, and whom I trust implicitly, Reince frankly admitted that Johnson was an inferior candidate…that it was his money that recommended him so highly and made him “right” to replace Feingold. Let that sink in for a moment… Reince didn’t give a rat’s patoot about Wisconsin voters or who could best represent them. He knew he was passing off seriously flawed goods. Johnson simply had enough money to make Reince’s dreams of escaping Wisconsin a plausible reality.

Understanding after the September primary that bobble-headed Ronny would likely be my next senator, I had hopes that perhaps he might seek out DeMint as some kind of mentor when he finally got to Washington…that he would maybe, just maybe, allow some real conservative principles and knowledge to seep deep into that vapid brain of his. In short, I hoped he would open himself to valuable education and development.

Well, yes, of course… It was a long shot. I mean, the establishment put him on the ballot and got him elected. The establishment, consequently, owns him. But you can’t stop a girl from throwing a penny into a wishing well as a desperate last hope, now, can you…?  From praying fervently that a pig’s ear could magically be transformed into a silk purse…?

Today stark reality once again snaps me out of futile reverie. Johnson is not a caterpillar bound for personal transformation. He’s just another common grub.

Johnson’s rejection of the Senate Tea Party Caucus will come as no surprise to Wisconsin’s conservative grassroots. But his true colors are certainly beginning to bleed through even earlier than I or my colleagues imagined they might…

I hope Johnson doesn’t think anyone is still fooled by that “sprang from the tea party” line anymore. If he’s smart, he’ll drop it from prepared statements. It’s becoming an insult to people’s intelligence.

Just my Sally, Dick & Jane way of saying that as a Wisconsin resident, grassroots activist, and Republican Party member, I would sooner chop off my own right arm than see Reince Priebus attain the heights of RNC Chairman. Priebus’ candidacy for national leadership is so egregious to me, in fact, that I’m breaking months of silence here on RedState to stand against it.

Much public discussion has unfolded in the past couple weeks about little Reince’s allegiances and dealings. There’s plenty to give anyone serious pause:

• Working for a law firm that supports Obamacare and considers it constitutional
• Serving as part of a designated team at said law firm to help clients obtain stimulus funds
• Attempting to scrub evidence of his involvement on said team
• Clerking for the not-so-conservative NAACP in the past
• Pushing Michael Steele’s disastrous election to the RNC chairmanship
• Enabling Michael Steele’s numerous failings and obvious incompetence

For me, all of that pales in comparison to Priebus’ patterns here in Wisconsin. In fact, these patterns should alarm grassroots, conservative Republicans in every state, for they portend worse to come should this man achieve power at the national level.

Reince the Rigger, Part 1 – Tax Day

Reince Priebus has a history of collusion, manipulation, subterfuge, and co-option in the service of getting his candidates and agendas pushed through. And it’s almost always at the expense of delegates and voters. If he wasn’t behind the matters I’m about to describe, there can be little or no doubt that he gave his blessing to them. The only other explanation? He’d lost control of his party and was totally oblivious to what others around him were doing. Is anyone really foolish enough to believe that Michael Steele’s general counsel and fix-it man didn’t have a clue…?

Some of you may be aware of the co-option of the April 2010 Tax Day Rally at Wisconsin’s State Capitol in Madison. What should have been a grassroots event dedicated to lower taxes, reduced government, and free-market principles was turned into a sordid publicity stunt headlined by big-government Republican Tommy Thompson—all to achieve a photo op and “tea party” credentials for not-yet-announced but already RPW-annointed Senate candidate Ron Johnson. Footage from the event later showed up in Johnson’s nomination video—surprise, surprise—to give him a helpful “tea party” veneer.

There’s much more to that story, but I have no room for it here if I’m going to cover…

Reince the Rigger, Part 2 – State Convention

That Priebus’ hand had been fully in the sorry Tax Day co-option became pretty darned clear a month later at the RPW’s State Convention.

Though Johnson officially entered the Senate race just a few short days prior to convention, robocalls from not one but two big-name establishment Republicans—former governor Scott McCallum and former lieutenant governor Margaret Farrow—went out on Johnson’s behalf in the short window between his announcement and the opening of the convention.

That means those calls were already produced and in the can well before Johnson’s announcement. Which, in turn, means that Reince Priebus, at the helm of the RPW, had already decided for convention delegates—and the voting public at large—the candidate for whom they’d be graced with the opportunity to vote in the general election. [The story was relatively similar in the governor’s race, though there it became obvious several months prior to the convention who the RPW was backing—and that they’d much prefer the other serious contender just to clear off.]

A record number of delegates attended the 2010 convention. Almost none of them knew anything of substance about Johnson going into that weekend. Yet somehow, after some very crazy Kabuki theatre—and you can’t possibly conceive just how completely crazy unless you were present in the hall to witness it—Johnson walked away with the endorsement.

There were, well…irregularities. First, the 2010 rules had changed, though no one seemed fully to understand precisely why this had perhaps been done until it was too late: The vote percentage neessary to obtain the endorsement had been lowered, while the percentage required to ensure a “no endorsement” result had been raised. The Republican Liberty Caucus has actually done an excellent job of summarizing the problem with this and other decisions and trends under Reince Priebus’ leadership.

Second, in one of the most backwards decisions of all time, candidates had to give their nomination presentations in the order in which they’d entered the race. If anything, it should have been the other way around in order to give some momentum and heft to candidates who’d been in longest. But this rule, too had a purpose. It set up a perfectly staged scene in which Senate candidate # 3, Dick Leinenkugel, a recently “converted” Democrat who’d recently resigned as Governor Jim Doyle’s Commerce Secretary no less, bowed out and threw his support to Johnson—at which point the hall spookily erupted in wild cheering and applause for final candidate Johnson, a man delegates had not yet had any opportunity to vet.

The endorsement was clinched for Johnson on the second ballot–though some of the balloting still doesn’t make any sense. This win was followed by a “surprise” appearance by…Tommy Thompson, who, having colluded in providing Johnson with false grassroots credentials and a photo op on Tax Day, now gave his public blessing to Johnson right on cue.

The third and most important irregularity? The balloting for the Senate endorsement mysteriously got bumped to Sunday…when most delegates had already gone home. Only about a third of registered delegates, in fact, remained to decide this extremely important matter, about 500 people with proportional voting. That means only about 300 of them or fewer voted for Johnson—though you’d never know that from the way the endorsement was waved around in the media.

You’d also never guess it from Reince Priebus’ comment when interviewed just days afterward: “It doesn’t matter if you are in the race for two years or two months,” he told the Wisconsin State Journal. “This proves that it’s about the right message and the right candidate.”

Seems like an innocuous comment, yes? Except that to the trained eye, it’s an impossible one. There was as of that point no substantive message, which means there was no substantive candidate. Moreover, Johnson managed to avoid putting up a single issue statement on his campaign website for about two months post-convention. So, substance didn’t exactly burgeon quickly. And no wonder. A few short weeks after convention, Johnson admitted on camera that he found the Constitution a difficult document to read. Unsurprisingly, the closer the grassroots looked, the more the RPW’s chosen one was seen to have major flaws, many of them progressive tendencies.

So, you see, Reince’s comment about “the right candidate and the right message,” printed just three days after the convention’s weird conclusion…? That remark could only have been written in advance for a public that the Wisconsin chair assumed to be blind and stupid.

The whole affair was an establishment production from start to finish. It centralized decision-making at the top levels of the party, put a false face on a poor candidate, and neatly co-opted the grassroots. And the only person—the ONLY one—who could have orchestrated it, who had access to all of the elements necessary to make this pig fly, was Wisconsin’s party chair, Reince Priebus.

That included collusion with the media…

Reince the Rigger, Part 3 – The Media

Now, again, do I have black and white proof on this score. Nope. But it’s all a little too neat.

If they hadn’t been doing so prior to convention, the three heaviest hitters in the Madison and Milwaukee talk radio markets—Sykes, Belling, and McKenna—certainly started shilling hard for Johnson immediately thereafter. In fact, every one of them ceased to give any time or attention to other candidates in the race. They simply refused to do so. [That, too, was the same in the governor’s race.] There was never discussion of Johnson’s foibles or flaws. It was a flat-out love-fest. At least two of these hosts went so far as to publicly attack individuals and groups that voiced objections or concerns about Johnson. The tune the three of them were all whistling sounded remarkably similar. Coincidence? Based on the similarities I heard with my own ears, I’d put my money on behind-the-scenes agreements and shared talking points.

Reince the Rigger, Part 4 – What to Expect from Him as RNC Chair

The picture I’ve painted for you here lines up quite well with whispers that are now flying around about other unseemly arrangements and double-dealings in which Reince Priebus may have been involved.

If RNC delegates and other top Republican leadership enjoy discovering they’ve been had, they should definitely cast their votes for Priebus, as they’ll be able to feel that way regularly. You think the way he’s maneuvered in, around, over, and on top of his good buddy Michael Steele has been interesting?  Just wait till you see what he can do for…and then TO…you. Oh he’s cute and little. He looks harmless. But you’ll never, ever be able to count on a word that comes out of his mouth or a single agreement you strike with him. He’s congenitally fork-tongued.

If you’re a mere mortal—a rank-and-file Republican or some low-level schlub like a county or district chair—get used to having even more candidate and policy decisions moved to somewhere well beyond your reach. That’s not theory. In whatever state you live, you should be contacting your committee members pronto to tell them Reince Priebus is the worst replacement for Steele possible.

In my experience, character flaws like Reince’s don’t get better with more room to maneuver; they get worse. A lot worse…

Caveat emptor.

Here are two sentences I never want to hear again:

“I’d vote for that candidate if s/he had more money. But I have to throw my vote to the candidate with a big enough war chest to win.”

Let me be clear:

This post is not about campaign finance reform. Rather, it’s about backward thinking to which we as a society have collectively and repeatedly adhered with extremely poor results. It advocates that we now engage in true leadership by rejecting the myth that money is the best measure of a candidate’s chances of success and veering away from the insidious and widespread damage it has caused. In this arena, as in so many others, it is time to restore principles that will move us in a more productive direction by evaluating candidates and the campaigns they run on far wiser criteria. We must also engage personally on multiple levels to ensure that the right candidates get elected. While it may be inconvenient, frankly, we can no longer expect that someone else will do the hard work for us.

This past week, a U.S. Senate candidate—who shall for now go nameless—was asked honestly by a leader of a chapter of the College Republicans how he would answer the charge that he was business-as-usual. The candidate retorted thus: “It takes money to win a campaign. Period.”

That was the candidate’s sum total response—pun intended: He has money; his opponent in the primary does not. Then, he pretty much walked away from the conversation.

You might think this candidate’s answer was not terribly adequate to the query posed. And, in a way, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But in another sense, what he said was right on target, quite revealing, and deserving of dissection.

In fact, without even realizing he’d done so, this particular candidate confirmed for his questioner that he WAS, in fact, business-as-usual. He aligned himself perfectly with the overall attitude and approach we’ve both fostered and reinforced as a nation when it comes to political campaigns. That being:

“Money first; principle, character, and substance later—if at all.”

In the campaign arena, we’ve become thoroughly keyed to money. We measure candidates largely by their cash-on-hand. The media seldom bothers even to report on someone running for office until they reach a funding threshold that signals campaign “viability.” And the rest of us mostly wait for the media to tell us who’s out there. Moreover, once the media does start reporting on a candidate, they’re often spitting back whatever information they get from paid campaign personnel. What you might call talking points.

On those occasions when you or I do go looking on our own, we often want to know which candidates can afford the most advertising, since television, particularly in federal level campaigns, is presumed essential to victory. We all want to be on the winning team. And we fairly automatically equate money with victory. As noted above, we have so bought into the myth that campaign funding is the be-all and end-all of viability that we now frequently hesitate to back candidates unless we see that they already have money. We don’t consider contributing unless others have done so first. This mentality is widespread, infecting state and federal GOP officials, rank-and-file party members, the population at large. This despite the fact that it’s an ugly, lazy approach and wholly antithetical to the principles-based thinking of our Founding Fathers.

What do we actually win in framing candidates and campaigns first and foremost in financial terms?

However much we’ve put our trust in it—and those candidates who have more of it—money is hardly the only or even the most accurate harbinger of campaign success. Take an example. Wisconsin’s state GOP has consistently gravitated toward moderate U.S. Senate candidates with large bank accounts. Unfortunately, for all of their money, those candidates could neither earn the trust of the electorate nor compellingly distinguish themselves from their Democrat opponents. And so, these moderate, moneyed candidates have all lost—despite their ability to pay for loads of television advertising and direct mail pieces, etc, etc, etc.

More strangely still, after every one of these losses, the state GOP has returned to the same candidate template. They never stop to consider that in this particular constituency, and against specific opponents, throwing their support to a candidate with less dough and more solid conservative principles might work out better for them. They seem utterly incapable of embracing what is, for them, a counter-intuitive strategy. The familiar enticement of a big bank account undermines them every time, regardless of previous outcomes.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying money is necessarily a bad thing. I’m not even saying that only candidates without money can be principled. Far from it. No, I’m simply insisting that we must at this critical juncture recognize that wealth and/or funding is not a reliable marker of anything at all—and that we should stop using it as one.

Can wealth signify that someone is a savvy businessman? Sure.

Can wealth also potentially disenchant critical voting blocks needed to win an election? Absolutely.

Does wealth necessarily mean that someone will handle taxpayer monies honorably and responsibly? Nope.

Does it necessarily communicate that someone will uphold and defend the United States Constitution, along with our personal liberties? Another definite nope.

When did money ever ensure that someone would be a trustworthy candidate? How has money ever signified that someone would do his or her fiduciary duty? At what point in history has money ever guaranteed principle? In what context has money ever ensured that someone would keep a sworn bond with his constituents?

We all know the answer to these questions. We currently have a Congress filled with very wealthy Americans—and they’re driving us into the ground. Yet, for some reason we persist in tying the question, “Can this candidate win?” first and foremost to finances.

It’s time to jettison money as our primary measure of candidates and the worth and viability of their campaigns. We must begin to use a wiser and more just set of standards.

If we want to expose and correct fraud, waste, and abuse…

If we want to see true accountability from elected officials…

If we want to stop the hemorrhaging of our personal rights and freedoms…

If we want truly to reform our system of taxation…

If we want to eliminate the misuse and abuse of executive, legislative, and judicial power…

If we want to disempower those who would destroy this nation through their own selfishness or wrong-headedness…

…then money must finally move into last place on of our list of concerns.

We also need to be asking ourselves what lengths we personally are willing to go to to obtain the principled, responsible representation we crave but have generally been too lethargic to go after.

Are we as citizens actively seeking candidates who profess originalist constitutional principles? Are we thoroughly investigating not the size of a candidate’s pocketbook or war chest, but rather their personal character—their ability to stand and lead on principle even in the darkest of times and to effectively communicate those principles and reasoning to others? Are we seeking candidates out to ask them hard questions, refusing to be content with the pat answers and positions expressed in campaign literature and television ads? Are we, when we find the right candidates, taking it upon ourselves to ask, “Can I write you a check?” AND (that’s right AND, not OR) “How else can I help you to get elected?” Are we using our own creativity to get the word out about good candidates? Are we helping those individuals think of new and inexpensive ways to get their message widely distributed when and where loads of cash is not available?

In this country we have learned to think outside of the box in so many ways. It is time to apply our ingenuity and, quite frankly, our vigilance, to this problem.

[As an aside, there's another good reason to move in this direction. In a time of economic crisis, why wouldn't we work keep campaign costs as low as possible. And why wouldn't we respect and trust candidates all the more for their own efforts to do so in such challenging times?  Expensive isn't always better or more effective. Like I said, creativity can work wonders.]

It’s not good enough any longer to let someone else’s money work. It’s when WE find a good candidate and invest our own hard-earned money and sweat equity that we have a real stake in the game.

That is the only path out of the valley.

The question is: Will we have the courage to take it? It is indeed courage that is required.

We have used money as our fallback for so long that many are afraid to relinquish it as the poor measure that it is. But these are extraordinary times. We cannot advance in this fight unless we are willing to leave failure behind and pursue success by an unfamiliar but ultimately surer course.

Men and women of principle are out there. Not all of them have money. Time is running out. Will we get behind them with everything we have and say no others who fit the “traditional mold” but who, by the better standards of character and principle, should not make the cut?

Let’s finally stop listening to the GOP and the media who have for so long helped to propagate such misguided thinking on candidates and campaigns. Heck, not even endorsements can necessarily be trusted these days since so many of them are awarded based on the same toxic system from which we must now divorce ourselves.

Look closely at the actual candidates yourself. Listen to what they’re saying. Find out what where they truly stand in relationship to the Constitution. Do they know that document backward and forward? Does it matter to them? Are they in love with it? Will they lead and vote in relationship to it? Will they stand for it when everyone else forgets?

Ask and answer those questions.

Then make your choice and back the candidates that measure up with everything you’ve got.

We have run out of election cycles to learn this lesson.

The time is now.

Those of you have been watching my diary over the last week or so are aware that Ron Johnson, Wisconsin candidate for U.S. Senate, is not, perhaps what he’s been attempting to make himself out to be.

If you’ve been watching my comments on other articles, you also know that I was at the Wisconsin state GOP convention in May and saw first-hand what happened with the Senate endorsement.

You’ve heard me assert that there’s a huge story there.

You’ve heard me say that the delayed balloting at convention was highly suspect.

You’ve heard me say that Leinenkugel’s “surprise” endorsement of Johnson smelled like three-day-old fish.

You’ve heard me say that Johnson’s machine had worked to give him the appearance of having “Tea Party credentials” that he hadn’t actually earned.

You’ve heard me caution that Johnson’s claim about not being prepared with certain critical items, like issues statements, for example, because “everything is happening so fast” was frankly a load of hooey.

Well… It seems I’m not alone.

Terrence Wall, the candidate the state party threw under the bus in favor of Johnson, seems to agree. And he’s got plenty more to say.

Since I thought you’d all like to evaluate for yourselves the accusations of fraud and tampering that Mr. Wall is in a unique position to share, I’m posting the link to his interview with WTDY…right here.

Sounds like Mr. Wall’s not done.

Sly says the former candidate will be back in a week or two to elaborate.

I think Dave Westlake is about to see another surge in the polls…

In sifting through the comments on Neil Stevens’ latest post, A Surprise Turn in Wisconsin, I’m noticing that many are missing the real story revealed by Tuesday’s Rasmussen results.

That’s a shame.

So here it is.

The fact that Wisconsin’s U.S. Senate race is finally starting to get some solid attention is a big deal. As a Wisconsinite, I’m grateful. And yes, Russ Feingold is indeed vulnerable…which many of us have been arguing for the last year.

However, Feingold is not actually all that vulnerable to Ron Johnson.

For starters, Feingold specializes in running against and beating candidates just like the Wisconsin GOP’s official choice: wealthy moderates. While the current political environment will likely make it a tighter race, I can promise you that Feingold’s got the formula down pat on how to close the deal.

There are other telltale signs that Johnson’s won’t be the winning horse. Let’s look at the polling closely for a moment in relationship to a couple of other truths.

The latest Rasmussen sample indicates that in a head-to-head match-up Johnson currently only trails Feingold by one percentage point: 45% to 46%.

I know that sounds exciting, but it’s actually not as big a deal as you might think.

Here’s why…

Johnson has had a full month now as the Republican Party’s endorsed candidate. He’s also dropped a huge wad—several hundred thousand dollars—on a glut of television ads in the last 10 days or so. But all it’s bought him since last month’s Rasmussen data is one teeny-weeny percentage point against Feingold.

Despite all of his supposed advantages, Johnson has failed to move the needle significantly in the last 30 days.

Dave Westlake is another story.

Last month’s Rasmussen sample suggested that in a head-to-head match-up, Westlake was also within striking distance of Feingold, but still trailed him by 9 percentage points: 38% to 47%.

Yesterday’s data for the same match-up shows that Feingold hasn’t budged in the past month. Westlake, however, has surged by 3 percentage points, reducing the gap to 6 points: 41% to 47%.

That, my friends, is MOMENTUM.

And Westlake is the only one in this race who’s got any.

Again, that’s a 3 percentage point gain over the course of a month, with:

• No party endorsement
• No big money
• No television or radio advertising

It appears that the people of Wisconsin may be seeking—and finding—something different than the usual fare. Westlake’s grassroots campaign is striking a solid chord with voters in this state.

It’s instructive to look at what Westlake has done differently.

Clear Differentiation

First, he’s opted to be a real constitutional conservative—instead of yet another in the multitude of middle-of-the-road moderates this state’s GOP adores and repeatedly foists on the electorate. Westlake has intelligently DIFFERENTIATED himself from competitors on both sides of the aisle. He’s given people a clear reason to choose him over anyone else.

Solid Personal Connection

Second, Westlake actually got in the race early enough to take his campaign to a far deeper level than anyone before him has ever done. He has personally CONNECTED with voters, building trust and loyalty that extends well beyond the surface draw of t.v. ads and campaign literature. He’s given people all across the state the opportunity to know him so that they can actually believe—not just hope, but believe—that he’ll hold to the conservative principles on which he’s chosen to run.

Strategic Definition and De-Commodification

Third, he’s REDEFINED campaign logic and largely DE-COMMODIFIED the campaign process. In taking the focus off money, he’s redirected it to communicating a solid message via low-cost but highly effective means. He’s done what Americans are supposed to do best: He’s demonstrated true entrepreneurship. He’s thought out of the box and worked tirelessly to bring his vision to fruition.

His approach is paying off.

In these hard economic times, voters appreciate Westlake’s highly original, frugal, common-sense approach. Many frankly find it obscene to spend millions on a campaign these days, and they’re making a reasonable projection: If a candidate is this creative; if he can successfully stretch a dollar on the campaign trail; if he doesn’t engage in extravagance and waste just to get elected, then he’s likely to apply the same ingenuity and prudence in Washington.

Consistency and Persistence

Consistency counts for much. Westlake’s conservative campaign choices line up with his conservative campaign message.

Over the last few months, we’ve seen one grassroots candidate after another on the national scene gain a decided foothold—and then an advantage—in their respective races. Dave Westlake clearly has his foothold. And at present he has the momentum that Johnson and Feingold both lack. He’s on track to be this election cycle’s next big surprise.

Those who’ve, up till now, so glibly pronounced Westlake to be unelectable may wish to adopt a more measured stance…quickly.

Recap: In Part 3, Johnson:

• Recommended that voters read his speeches to know he’s trustworthy
• Reiterated that he couldn’t offer any guarantees as to his trustworthiness
• Made flimsy excuses about why there’s still so little of substance on his website
• Failed to grasp why bad policy never seems to change, regardless of who’s in power

Next up? His willingness to risk your civil liberties.

The Devil You Know

Having thoroughly bumbled his way through a mere half-hour of questioning, Johnson’s handler decides the candidate has skinned himself up badly enough. At the beginning of this next segment, it’s announced that Johnson will only take one further question. Note that Johnson’s Republican competition, Dave Westlake, and the Constitutional candidate, Rob Taylor, both submitted themselves to several hours of questioning by this same group…without flinching.

The Rock River Patriots took the announcement in stride, but clearly decided to make their last question count.

“Do you support the Patriot Act?”

Ruh roh…

You can tell Johnson would prefer not answer this one. But, after a long pause, he’s off and running in his run-on sort of way.

“I’ll put it this way: So much of the Patriot Act exists in law, and they just put it within that law. I certainly share the concerns of civil liberties. Now if you have Barack Obama in charge versus George Bush—I wasn’t overly concerned with George Bush in power. I’m a little more concerned about the Patriot Act when you have Barack Obama. I think it was very wise for Congress to make that renewable, o.k.? I’d like to see the whole thing renewable—every couple years, and be forced to do that. But no, I think it was necessary to update—part of the Patriot Act was updating laws to account for cell phones and that kind of stuff, so that we could actually track terrorists overseas and stuff. I think it was a necessary—Our nation was at risk. When you’re at risk by things like international terrorism and stuff, you have to react to that. And you sometimes have to give up a little bit. But again, I like the fact that it should be of a temporary nature and be something for renewal.”

Here’s a tip for you, Ron: A law that compromises civil liberties is problematic no matter who’s in power. When you expand government control to such an immense degree, when you grant permission to abuse people’s rights, sooner or later those rights will—not might, will—get abused. By Republicans. By Democrats. By the Pink and Purple Octopus Party. I don’t care how benevolent and necessary it all appears initially, it’s playing with fire.

This deal where we can feel good about legislation as long as we’re “dancing with the right partner” but have to worry when one party waltzes out of office and another foxtrots in…? This legislation compromises constitutional liberties regardless of the names filling one’s dance card. It’s a polka law-abiding citizens should be able to sit out…ENTIRELY.

On this one, I’ll give the Left their due. They were rightfully screaming about the dangers of the Patriot Act under George W. Bush. Of course, now they’ve largely stopped screaming about it. Apparently they’d rather scream about what a bunch of hypocrites conservatives are because so many of us weren’t screaming with them way back when. Pointless. But o.k. The bottom line is, they had a good bit of this issue right, and it unfortunately took conservatives a while to catch up.

Except Ron Johnson hasn’t.

That he’s comfortable with the Patriot Act in one administration’s hands but not another—and that he’d keep it around anyway—demonstrates how far from the Constitution Johnson’s actually standing. He doesn’t grasp the very real danger that lies in passing and growing accustomed to any law that grants government unconstitutional powers over the People.

He’s using shortsighted, fairyland thinking—the kind we’ve been using for too long, the kind that has put us at the brink of losing not just some but rather all of our Constitutional freedoms. It is a kind of thinking we must no longer engage.

Except Ron Johnson still does.

The Devil They Define

Continuing to make the most of their last question, group members follow up by asking if Johnson supports Patriot Act provisions such as warrantless “sneak-and-peek” searches and indefinite detention. The want to know where he stands on fusion centers—the numerous and highly controversial state-level hubs that now warehouse collected public and private data.

Before giving him a chance to reply, one group member raises concerns about the February 2009 report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC). Part of the fusion effort, MIAC labeled local grassroots groups, Ron Paul supporters, members of third parties, and Christians, for example, as potential terror threats. Another person in the audience remarks on proposed legislation that would enable the federal government to hold people indefinitely for providing material assistance to any entity deemed a terrorist group.

They’re doing their level best here, the Rock River Patriots, to educate RoJo on the looming potential menace the Patriot Act and similar legislation pose not to foreign terrorists but to law-abiding citizens who stand in opposition to an out-of-control government. It’s not like they’re without reason to consider the possibility. Its attacks on 1^st and 2^nd Amendment rights, our most fundamental liberties, suggest that the current administration is working from every angle possible to minimize or eliminate the proper authority of the People.

But despite RoJo’s admission that he’s not entirely comfortable with the Obama administration possessing so much power over the lives of citizens, he clings to his faith in government’s ultimate trustworthiness in relationship to the Patriot Act. He seems to think that if we can just get Republicans back in office, the Patriot Act is still okeedokee.

What’s the mark of a progressive again…? Ah yes: Regardless of party affiliation, a progressive will expand the size and scope of government, believing that it—rather than the People—holds the answers to society’s problems.

If the shoe fits, Ron…

“I understand the concerns,” Johnson claims, “but I also think you have to take a look at what’s happened since [the Patriot Act] was passed back in 2001 or 2002. I’m not aware of a single instance of a civil liberty violation that’s been prosecuted or even alleged. But there are checks and balances. Again,” and here he starts to sound impatient, like he’s talking to children, “I understand the concern about civil liberties. I do. Again, that’s why it should be renewable.”

A group member asserts that the potential for abuse does exist.

“There are possibilities for all kinds of things,” Johnson shoots back.

Yes. There are, Ron. But this is not Never-Never Land we’re talking about here. Widespread constitutional abuses have actually happened.

Right here.

In the United States.

More than once.

Historically.

For starters, Woodrow Wilson and his goon squads made every effort to quash any resistance to U.S. involvement in World War I.

Want more proof, Ron?

FDR rounded up Japanese-American citizens—not illegal aliens, CITIZENS—and threw them in detention camps simply because they might consort with the enemy. Worse? After FDR understood that these law-abiding citizens were not a threat, he didn’t release them right away—because he felt it would cause PR problems for his administration. Now there’s upright, moral thinking for you.

These are exactly the sort of unconstitutional abuses to which AMERICAN CITIZENS are vulnerable under the Patriot Act, should their government turn on them.

And if you imagine for one moment, Ron, that a Republican president wouldn’t be capable of the same kind of abuse as a Democrat’s administration, think again. Democrats didn’t get us into our current constitutional crisis all on their own.

When the government holds the prerogative to trample 1^st and 4^th Amendment rights—just for starters—without so much as a judge signing off; when it can view someone as a potential terrorist simply due to personal faith or membership in the grassroots, then I’m pretty sure the risks outweigh any potential benefits. I’m all for nabbing bad guys. But I’m not for laws that allow government to

• Circumvent the courts and the Constitution
• Operate with impunity
• Create enemies lists
• Preemptively silence citizens from whom it doesn’t wish to hear
• Monitor, punish, or otherwise infringe upon citizens against whom there is no viable proof of wrong-doing

The Constitution matters—even when it’s inconvenient.

“We do have checks and balances in these things,” says RoJo almost blithely.

Begging your pardon, Ron, but which ones…? Because I’ve been watching our federal system of checks and balances circle the drain.

Apparently the Rock River Patriots have, too, because one of them quickly reminds Johnson that the reason our Founding Fathers included the 2^nd Amendment in the bill of rights is to protect against an out-of-control government.

…Brief flashback…

Let’s return for just a moment to Ronny’s answer on the 2^nd Amendment question in Part 2 of this series. Remember that little disclaimer he made at the beginning—later repeated for emphasis—that he’s not a hunter and has never owned guns? Remember him saying that he hadn’t thought much about the 2^nd Amendment? Remember me warning that he perceived fear of an out-of-control government as quaint and outmoded?

Ruminate on all of that as you consider the next bit of dialogue.

The Government Taketh

One of the Rock River Patriots paraphrases the following 18^th-century quotation, often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, who published an edition of the letter from which it came: “Any society that would give up a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

Precisely.

But no, aphorism be damned, RoJo’s got it all worked out.

“I understand, but we’re talking about a day and age now where we’re talking about terrorists potentially getting ahold of nuclear power or nuclear bombs,” Johnson states. “You know, suitcase bombs from the Soviet Union and stuff. I mean, we do have to have tools. Our security systems have gotta have tools for monitoring.”

The gentleman posing the concern heads next to exactly the question I would ask, “Understood. But apart from our military, can you think of one thing the federal government has actually done well for us? And we should entrust them with this [authority]?”

“I’m as skeptical as you in terms of the effectiveness of the federal government,” Johnson retorts.

Are you Ronny? Are you really…?

Because if you were, wouldn’t you be searching for a better way to face our security challenges than to put so much power over the lives of citizens in the hands of liars, cheats, thieves, and incompetents?

After a brief sidetrack, a former policeman in the group adamantly insists that if he needs to search someone’s home, he can get a search warrant by waking a judge up in the middle of the night—that the Patriot Act does nothing but wrongly compromise civil liberties. Oh, and by the way, Ron, it’s spending a whole helluva lot of our hard-earned tax-payer dollars to do that. How, might I ask, does that square with your stated fiscal definition of freedom?

RoJo chooses respectfully to disagree with him. “I think there are some very scary things out there that we better be keeping an eye on, we better be listening to conversations with terrorists overseas. You know, whether it’s biological weapons…”

Ron clearly isn’t tracking. The concerns weren’t about the Patriot Act’s impact overseas. The former policeman refuses to let him off the hook. He lays it out in the plainest of terms: “I’m not concerned about the terrorists overseas. I’m far more afraid of my own government.”

Clearly exasperated, Johnson sighs heavily, then pulls himself together to say politely, “I respectfully disagree with you, Sir.”

And there it is…

Ron Johnson does, in fact, think that fear of an out-of-control government is outmoded. He’s failed to grasp what the Rock River Patriots already know—what most RedState readers already know: No foreign foe will every destroy the United States. If we are going to fall, we will destroy ourselves from within—just as Alexis de Tocqueville predicted. It’s exactly what we’ve been doing. Not least by handing more and more control to a government that was never meant to be as powerful in the lives of American citizens as it has become. It’s precisely what must now stop.

Plain and simple, the Patriot Act undermines the concept of inalienable rights. It makes government the arbiter of whether you have a right to expect privacy or respect or protection. And as Gerald Ford so neatly pointed out back in 1974: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take away everything you have.”

Johnson understands neither this simple fact nor the currents of history. He wrongly places more confidence in a bloated, corrupt government to administer an unconstitutional program in order to guarantee what he would call security than he does in the ability of a wise people to confront challenges in a way that permits them to maintain what they would call liberty.

He has fallen into a very unconstitutional hole, the belief that government knows best.

It’s exactly why it would be poor judgment at best to entrust Ron Johnson with a senate seat. His mentality is part of the problem. It represents the status quo…not the will to overcome it.

The questioning concludes.

It’s clear Johnson can’t wait to get out of the hot seat.

If he thinks this was bad, I wonder what he supposes Washington will be like.

Maybe he imagines his handlers will bail him out there, too.

Recap: In Parts 1 & 2, Ron Johnson:

• Demonstrated his lack of any coherent message and political strategy
• Revealed progressive policy leanings
• Admitted he finds the Constitution difficult to read
• Expressed a definition of freedom that conflicts with other stated positions
• Remarked that he hadn’t given a lot of thought to numerous key issues
• Labeled several reasonable questions as either too broad or too specific
• Failed to articulate, when asked, his principles/moral code

Nary a dull moment so far. Let’s see how he does in today’s nail-biting installment. There are so many potholes he could potentially fall into. I’m on the edge of my seat. Which one will be next…?

The Man in the Mirror

Those following along will recall that at the end of the last video segment, RoJo was asked to elaborate on how voters could be sure that he was the right man to send to Washington. He replied he couldn’t offer any guarantees.

At the start of the next video, a member of the Rock River Patriots picks up on a similar thread, noting that he’s as tired of Republicans going to Washington and compromising their principles as he is of Democrats flying in the face of the public will. He corners Johnson, saying he’s afraid that once the candidate gets to the Senate, the People won’t hear from him again, that he won’t fight openly for the principles he ran on.

Since Johnson still doesn’t seem to know what principles he’s running on, this was bound to be a difficult question for him to answer. However, considering the record of most Washington politicians, the concern expressed is perfectly legitimate and deserves a sincere, thoughtful response.

RoJo’s stab: “Have you by any chance been reading any of my speeches?”

[Insert stunned silence and dropping jaw here.]

WHAT?!

So entirely off the mark is this response that it’s hard even to know where to begin. But, what the hell, I’ll give it a shot.

First, Johnson needs to stop believing his own campaign hype. He got a lukewarm reception at best for his speech at the Tax Day Rally in Madison. I was there. His effort was trite and unexciting. Heck, his nomination video had a Milwaukee-area radio host (Charlie Sykes) gushing throughout about what wonderful rhetoric the Tax Day speech contained, but ultimately there was only one tiny soundbite used from it at the very end. If the rhetoric was truly so awe-inspiring, why didn’t they use more of the real deal? Because, as I’m telling you, it was average at best. At the risk of humoring RoJo, go ahead and read it if you don’t believe me. Like Ron says, it’s all up on his campaign site.

Second—and far more importantly—as Nancy Pelosi recently noted about President Obama, people say a lot of things when they’re on the campaign trail. But thinking folks realize that words are, well…words. Voters these days want to refer to some sort of concrete record, possibly a signed pledge to which they can hold you accountable. They want to understand something of the ideals and principles that they can expect will guide you in office. They want to know how you plan to mitigate any moments of personal weakness. They want some sort of snapshot of your soul and what, if anything, it’s connected to. Why? Because, however much people have now grown accustomed to underplaying the importance of character these days, people know deep down that it matters.

Bottom line? Pointing someone to a couple of speeches you’ve made provides no proof, no bond, no confidence. In fact, to point to the basic equivalent of a stump speech when a voter wants to know whether they can trust you is simply laughable.

Proof is in the pudding, as the old adage goes. And a nifty speech does not pudding make. Rather, a speech is something that gains true weight only in the combined light of personal record and historical circumstances. Patrick Henry, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan… Name me any great speechmaker you like. Those men’s words matter today because they proved by their actions that they practiced what they preached. Their record stands up in the light of time and history.

So, hey, if someone wants to hold up RoJo’s speeches twenty years from now as evidence of his intentions and character, I’ll consider at that point that it might be a viable idea. But for now, since Johnson claims to be a Lutheran, I’d counsel him thus: “Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth.” (Proverbs 27:2) Self-referentially pointing to your own speeches is what Emily Post would label bad form.

A Bad “Tea” Leaf Reading

In pointing to his own speeches, Johnson also further exposes the ill-conceived sham of his initial campaign positioning as a “Tea Party candidate.”

There’s a golden rule in communications: Know your audience. In these videos, Johnson’s put himself in front of a local conservative grassroots group—a part of the Tea Party movement. If he were really part of the movement and not an increasingly obvious and under-prepared establishment shill, he would know that a speech isn’t going to mean a dee-doodle to this crowd. They’re utterly determined to ensure that no more business-as-usual candidates get elected to office. They wouldn’t be intent on running Johnson through the ringer otherwise—or did Ronny think all those tough questions the Rock River Patriots were asking were the equivalent of a big ol’ friendly bear hug? Nope. It’s an initiation process. A VETTING. No candidate is getting past them without proving themselves.

A group like this one wants to see how well a candidate can think on his feet. They’re watching for what happens when questions are getting tossed one after another like rapid gunfire, when stress and fatigue creep in. The answers that come back under such circumstances reveal much. Why?  Because when human beings grow uncomfortable, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to keep up any masks they might be wearing; they tend to revert to what is most ingrained in them. Stress and pressure in a vetting session yield a better glimpse of a candidate’s true foundations—on what exactly he’s built and stands.

If you pay close attention to the segments of this vetting session, from start to finish, you’ll discover that Ron Johnson’s mask begins to fall away quickly. He’s never fully able to re-don it. When uncomfortable, he frequently grows defensive, testy, and…arrogant. Pointing people toward his own speeches demonstrates the degree to which RoJo is dependent on marketing props rather than deep knowledge. It’s intellectually lazy, which is bad enough in a senate candidate. But it’s also the reflexive move of a narcissist…not a man of true humility. Haven’t we seen this sort of thing somewhere before…?

Following up by mentioning his Republican Party endorsement is equally lazy and narcissistic on Johnson’s part. It’s sure not a valid answer to the question. And big news: A party endorsement likewise has zero meaning to a group like the Rock River Patriots or to many of those who’ve now viewed this vetting session online. In fact, a party endorsement these days is no guarantee whatsoever of a candidate’s principles or character. (Even less so in this case…but more on that another day.)

He flounders, little Ronny, trying to navigate his way through this fundamental question, this opportunity to build others’ confidence in him. It’s highly instructive. He lists off a bunch of stuff that aggravates him—including RINOs, which is interesting since he’s shown that he’s got the makings for being one himself. He proclaims he has a “deep reverence” for what we have and how it’s been squandered—which is humorous because he’s flat out acknowledged he doesn’t have a cohesive plan to move back in the right direction . He tells us he’s a big boy and usually the rabble-rouser on the boards he serves on—to which my underwhelmed response is, “Umm, o.k.”

But he doesn’t—in fact, can’t—offer up what’s required: a solid reason to trust him.

Priorities, Priorities

When asked by a member of the group how to find his campaign website, Johnson shares the URL, then notes that it’s still under development. He adds, by way of an excuse, that everything has happened “very fast.” In fact, he says it twice for emphasis.

Let’s just stop and think about that for a moment.

Again, Johnson, by his own admission, dickered over a period of months about whether or not to get in the U.S. Senate race. He told people in March that he was waiting to see if Tommy Thompson would get in or out, which already raises eyebrows. If RoJo were a man of true conservative principle, he would have gotten in—if for no other reason—simply to run AGAINST Tommy Thompson, who is a progressive in Republican clothes. But setting that itsy-bitsy matter aside for the time being and staying on point, if Johnson was putting feelers out in March about a “possible” run, little doubt exists that he’d been thinking about it well before then.

Even after Thompson’s April 15^th announcement that it was time for “new faces,” (again, more another time) Johnson didn’t jump in right away. He waited another full month, jumping in a mere five days before the state GOP convention. That’s more time a guy with a lot of money to buy campaign staff had to get a campaign squared away. Still, Johnson feels justified in making excuses for the ongoing lack of substance on his campaign website.

That’s incredibly curious considering the fact that Johnson was completely organized and ready in advance to target delegates to Wisconsin’s state GOP convention and ask them to vote for his endorsement there. For starters, he deployed, not one but two robo-calls by big-name establishment Republicans in the very few days leading up to the Milwaukee event. And yet, for a full month after his formal announcement, Johnson had zero stated positions on his campaign website—just a run-of-the-mill biography and a donation mechanism.

I’ve pointed out elsewhere the gross irresponsibility of asking delegates to vote for a candidate who they’ve not had a chance to vet properly. But for now, let’s just stick to the issue at hand—RoJo’s claim that everything has happened “very fast.” If he and his campaign staff had time to put together robo calls asking people to vote for him, why didn’t they have time to post issues statements?

Quite simply, it comes down to priorities.

Unfortunately, Johnson and his campaign staff have demonstrated fairly consistently over the last month or so that providing solid information about principles, positions, and character remains pretty low on their list.

Why…?

Because if you ain’t got it, you can’t successfully flaunt it. For the Johnson campaign, mystery has been deemed far preferable to the truth.

Politics as Usual

Toward the end of this video segment, one of the Rock River Patriots ventures that for the past hundred years, Republicans and Democrats have repeatedly exchanged places while policy has remained largely the same. He asks if Johnson has ever given much thought as to the reason.

“Government has taken so much onto itself,” Johnson asserts, “it has gained so much power, and I was asked the other day, ‘What do you think about lobbyists?’ I think these individuals have a right to petition the government to redress things based on the organization they’re in with. The problem is, the government’s taken on the power that forces people to contact and go sluff off the rules and regulations that they may be imposing on a particular sector. So in my mind, the real culprit here is just the overstepping of the power of government over the decades.”

It’s half an answer. It addresses one of the symptoms—expansion of government control. But It doesn’t address how or why Republicans and Democrats have become virtually interchangeable in contributing to this expansion. That is really what the individual who posed the question was getting at. I know the answer. I suspect that nearly everyone reading this post does. That’s because we’re part of the paradigm shift. But apparently Johnson, yet again, hasn’t thought that deeply about something that actually matters.

For now, I won’t relate my own very detailed thoughts on the reasons policy doesn’t change whether it’s Dems or Republicans in office, because, frankly, I’m not interested in giving RoJo any easy answers. I’d prefer that he ponder the matter a little more deeply on his own.

What’s clear, however, is that without the answer, Ron Johnson is already guaranteed to make the same mistakes in Washington that the establishment has been making for years—mistakes we can no longer afford.

Final installment coming soon…

Recap: In Part 1, Ron Johnson—who is, along with Dave Westlake, running on the Republican ticket for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin—demonstrated during a Rock River Patriots vetting session that he:

• Still needs a coherent message
• Has progressive policy leanings
• Lacks a solid familiarity with the Constitution
• Divides his definition of freedom against itself

Let’s jump right into the last half of the first video segment (at the 5:49 mark) and see what goodies await us there, shall we…?

Let’s say you have the opportunity to abolish the IRS and institute a flat tax or a consumption tax. Would you be for that?

Johnson’s transcribed reply: “Boy, if you could eliminate the IRS, that would be a wonderful thing. But is it logical? I don’t know. I mean, we are so far from that point… You’re going to have to do this in steps. I’d love to see some dramatic tax simplifications, tax reductions, that type of thing. A flatter, fairer system, quite honestly.”

He correctly identifies a steep, progressive tax structure and marginal tax rates as big problems. But look closely at those middle few sentences of his response…

Whoa.

The IRS is a “legalized” enforcement and extortion racket. Does RoJo think we should take a gradual approach to ridding ourselves of the Russian mob, too? Does he think it’s illogical to give them the heave-ho?

Johnson bills himself as a businessman who’s good with numbers and spreadsheets. You’d think he’d be all ready with a plan to get rid of America’s most deservedly hated institution. Especially since he defines freedom in financial/economic terms.

Instead, he hands us the equivalent of: “Yeah, that’d be nice, but it’s pie in the sky. It’s always been this way, so why mess with it.” But maybe he hasn’t he just hasn’t thought much about this issue yet, either…

What does the 2^nd Amendment mean to you, and what would you to do protect it?

Johnson quickly points out that he’s a fisherman, has never been a hunter, and doesn’t own guns—but adds that he of course supports the 2^nd Amendment. Well, that’s vaguely comforting…I guess. But why the initial disclaimer? People don’t usually offer a disclaimer unless they feel the need to distance themselves from something. In this case, it’s not Johnson’s lack of knowledge he’s distancing himself from. It’s firearms.

He claims support of Open Carry because it correlates to reduced crime levels. Good. He says criminals should be fearful for their activities, not law-abiding citizens. Yup. He even understands that the Founders included the 2^nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights to defend against an out-of-control government. And yet one still comes away with a subtle but nagging sense that RoJo’s not comfortable with the idea of guns or with citizens possessing them. He leaves the impression that defense against an out-of-control government is an outmoded fear.

In point of fact, that’s exactly what Johnson believes. More in an upcoming installment.

When asked what infringements to constitutional rights he’d support, in relationship to gun ownership, Johnson notes he’d be fine with “minimal licensing,” comparing it to car licensing. Reiterating that he’s not a gun owner, he says he hasn’t given the issue a lot of thought. Well, again, like Johnson, I don’t own any guns, but I’ve given plenty of thought to my 2^nd Amendment rights. So let me share a couple of them…

Unfortunately, licensing has failed to impact significantly the number of crimes involving firearms. In fact, it has resulted almost exclusively in inconveniencing law-abiding citizens. Someone who wants to commit a crime with a gun is going to get one—legally or illegally.

Furthermore, should government ever wish to disarm American citizenry, licensing makes it easier to find and collect firearms. And that’s not so far-fetched when you consider the City of Chicago’s “credit card for your guns” drive a few months ago or Hilary Clinton’s push to involve the U.S. in a U.N. small arms control treaty.

And that’s exactly where the Rock River Patriots were headed…

As a U.S. Senator, would you vote for the U.N. small arms treaty?

Johnson said he didn’t know enough to comment.

One word: YIKES!

Someone in the audience followed up by asking for a position on U.N. treaties, in general. RoJo labels the question as too broad. Comical, considering he wasn’t able to respond to the first, quite specific question. He had no basic statement on analysis of a treaty’s ultimate aims and outcomes or whether it would limit national sovereignty, constitutional authority, or the rights of our citizenry.

Not good…

Ronny finally admits he’s not a big fan of the U.N., says its a joke and an embarrassment—which it most certainly is. But criminy… It’s only when someone explains to Johnson that the question about the small arms treaty is meant to discern how well he would protect constitutional rights that he says, “No, I would not support [a U.N. small arms treaty].” He subsequently declares that he’d never vote for anything that would compromise U.S. sovereignty. Am I supposed to feel reassured at this point? Because I don’t.

That Johnson did not immediately understand the intent of the questioning is not only troubling but rightfully calls into question his ability to draw correct and crucial inferences in the role of senator.

Rolling on to the next video…

As a U.S. Senator, you’ll swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. What federal agencies do you believe are unconstitutional?

A SOFTBALL QUESTION!!!!

But I’ll be damned. RoJo still can’t come up with an answer. Once again he claims the question is too broad.

Hell! I can name at least 10 unconstitutional agencies and departments in seconds flat. He sits there stumped. Watch him struggle to come up with something, anything at all.

Then, he breaks the uncomfortable silence:

“I will say, prior to doing this, I sat down and read the Constitution thoroughly, probably five, six times. It is not an easy document to read. Unless you study it in detail, it’s hard to study. “

A member of the audience replies, “It’s not that big.”

Johnson testily shoots back, “I realize that,” then searches again for words before continuing defensively. “I’m not a constitutional scholar. If you want me to make broad sweeping statements, I’m just not prepared to do that. If you want to talk about specific things, I’ll answer specific questions.”

Another group member graciously complies, “Do you think the Department of Education is unconstitutional?”

A third group member makes the question even more specific: “According to Article 1, Section 8.”

Still Johnson hems and haws before suggesting, “Let’s talk about education,” and wisely indicating he prefers local control of education to federal control.

Immediately thereafter, yet another group member follows up on the original question, asking quite reasonably, “Which federal agencies would you eliminate?” Johnson’s now-familiar refrain? “I really haven’t given it a lot of thought.”

Well, pardon me for asking, but what exactly HAS RoJo been thinking about? Anything at all besides how totally awesome it’s going to be to have an office in Washington…?

Johnson does expound on a fiscal approach to identifying where waste is occurring. That’s a good start, but it’s only a small part of the problem—which is why Johnson’s response, or lack thereof, is so troubling. Budgets can be raised and lowered; but the continued existence of unconstitutional, regulatory agencies in our government is akin to dandelions in a lawn. Unless you eradicate them at the root, they grow back. Johnson’s failure to zero in on constitutionality should set alarm bells ringing for Wisconsin voters.

In fact, he says something that should send more shivers down the spine: “I’m sorry. I don’t have the whole game plan worked out, here, in terms of this, that, and the other thing. All I can say is that I have a very sincere desire, and I think I have the ability and the background to ultimately do it.”

Sorry, but: “I have the right background; trust me,” doesn’t cut it. We need a candidate who:

• Thinks about the issues in depth and in relationship to the U.S. Constitution
• Develops informed, viable strategies
• Stands ready to pursue those strategies to achieve stated, understandable goals
• Holds to solid principles that won’t disintegrate under pressure.

So far, you got nuttin’.

A Rock River Patriots member seemed to have similar concerns on that last point. He pressed Johnson in that direction: “There’s a concern that there’s a machine in Washington, and the machine is its own entity. As you go in with these ideals and principles, when you get into that system, what confidence do we have? What is your moral compass? What is your sense of principle? What is your uncompromising attitude toward what’s right to give us confidence once we say, ‘OK, Ron. Go in there and fight for us to have our country taken back.’? What can we hear from you that says, ‘Yes, we believe he isn’t going to change—that he’s not going to go in there and vote for principles we don’t believe in.”

Johnson’s response? “I can’t give you any guarantees. I can only tell you that I want to solve the problem.”

What’s that old saying about the road to hell…?

Where is Johnson’s explication of his moral code? That’s what he’s very plainly being asked to provide. He can’t articulate that either. He says he wants to work with other people. That’s nice, Ron, but unless we know who and what YOU are, we don’t necessarily have any confidence in your ability to do the right things PERIOD—whether you’re going it alone or in concert with others.

WHO ARE YOU, RON JOHNSON? So far, the answer seems to be: a dangerously under-informed guy who thinks the Constitution is hard to understand but who has a lot of money and wants a senate seat.

You better come up with something more compelling than that, Ronny—and quickly. And by the way, since you’re finding the Constitution so difficult to study, you may want to get yourself a good tutor. Your competition already knows it inside and out.

The test is timed, and the clock is ticking…

Part 3 on Monday.

On Friday, June 11^th, Wisconsin U.S. Senate candidate Ron Johnson appeared before a local conservative grassroots group, the Rock River Patriots. The group has a reputation for tough questioning. They didn’t waver on this occasion. Regardless of where you come down on the questions they asked Johnson, you have to give them credit: They know the Constitution backwards and forwards—and they have an excellent grasp of constitutional principles in relationship to the issues.

You have to hand it to the Rock River Patriots for a second reason. They’re doing what most of us have failed to do for decades. They’re truly vetting candidates. They’re not settling for surface information like campaign literature, stump speeches, and t.v. ads. No, they’re digging in to uncover who and what each candidate really is on a variety of levels. And in posting video of their efforts, they’re performing a huge service for voters across the state. We can now all see the fruits of these sessions quite easily, simply by visiting a website.

Candidates usually stay at these sessions as long as attendees have questions. Dave Westlake, visiting the same group last winter, has reported spending four hours facing their non-stop fire. Members of the group tell me that they’ve never once had a candidate unwilling to stay until all questions were asked and answered…until Ron Johnson, that is.

The vetting session with Ron Johnson ended up going so poorly for the candidate in key respects that his campaign staff put a stop to the questioning. In segment five of the video, well under 40 minutes into the session, the handler informs the group’s leader—who subsequently informs the group—that Johnson will answer only one further question.

Talking points or coincidence?

Johnson started out with a full eight and a half minutes of personal introduction. Less then two minutes in, he says something that might seem completely innocuous to anyone not paying close attention: “I realize I just received the endorsement from the Republican Party. I will say I was as surprised as anybody about that. But I do want to say that I view that more as an endorsement of my message.”

Why does this little snippet raise my eyebrow? Two reasons.

On Wednesday, May 26^th, just days after the state GOP convention had concluded, the Wisconsin State Journal published an article on the party’s [use skeptical tone here] “surprise” endorsement of Johnson. Near the end, Reince Priebus, Chair of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, asserts: “It doesn’t matter if you’re in the race for two years or two months. This proves it’s about the right message and the right candidate.”

It sounds suspiciously like Priebus and Johnson are repeating talking points.

One could, I suppose, chalk the similar language up to sheer coinkydink.

Except for reason number two: What message?  I don’t think talking points count.

It’s been clear from the very beginning to anyone paying attention that Ron Johnson hasn’t yet got a message and doesn’t seem in a hurry to develop one—beyond the catch-word “Freedom.” Doubt me…? The Rock River Patriots video is right at the top of a mounting pile of proof.

All questions were asked by individuals actually in the room for the vetting session.

What makes you think you’re the person that can beat Russ Feingold?

RoJo’s summary response? To paraphrase: “I’m a manufacturer. We’re losing manufacturing jobs. We’re facing fiscal crisis. I’m comfortable with budgets, spreadsheets, and numbers.”

The question Ron actually ended up answering was the vetting equivalent of “What do you want to be when you grow up?”—that being, “Why do you think you’d make a good senator right now?”

Unfortunately, RoJo didn’t even touch the answer to the question actually posed. He didn’t talk about strategy. He didn’t say a thing about how he’s going to win the confidence of independents, who have historically voted for Feingold. He didn’t broach how he might capture disillusioned Democrats. He didn’t hint at how he’s going to counteract the rich white guy image that Russ is bound to leverage against him. He didn’t mention where, how, or why he’d attack Feingold’s record.

THAT is information that would suggest a coherent campaign strategy reflective of planning and understanding in relationship to—what was the question again—oh yeah, beating Feingold. Such answers would also provide a window onto a longer-term agenda that seriously considers how not only to win voters over but, every bit as importantly, how to keep their trust beyond election day.

Instead, RoJo admits throughout the session that he knows what a difficult race it will be but that, as of yet, he has no real sense of how he’s going to pull this thing off.

Bear in mind that Johnson, by his own admission, dickered about getting in this race for several months. If he can’t articulate something this foundational to his own campaign a full month or more after his formal announcement, precisely when will he be able to do so?

In Your Opinion, What’s the Role of the Federal Government

Here RoJo quickly stepped in a pile of his own poopy. And it’s going to stink him up but good for those hoping to get away from run-of-the-mill, moderate Republicans—the kind that Feingold repeatedly slaughters at the polls.

He begins by saying he “thinks” the government’s role is “pretty well defined in the Constitution,” that its first responsibility is national defense. Tentative, but not a bad start.

Just thereafter, he puts his foot in it: “But also, I’m not reflexively anti-government…I want the government to have smart and effective regulation to make sure the free market continues to operate properly. I don’t want to see large companies with monopolistic practices. I think we should invoke anti-trust regulation so that— If there’s ever a business that’s termed too big to fail, regulation has already failed. We shouldn’t allow businesses to accumulate each other and merge to the point where they get too large to fail.”

Uh oh…

Let me get this straight: Ron Johnson, entrepreneur and millionaire, wants someone else to tell him when his company’s gotten too big? He’d really appreciate it if the government told him he couldn’t buy another company in order to expand or innovate? Or is it that—like so many in Washington—RoJo thinks those kinds of rules wouldn’t apply to him?

Ronny sounds suspiciously like a progressive—not a conservative.

I wonder what his definition of “too big” is? Do you think he has one yet? Or is he waiting for the rest of the establishment in Washington to define it for him? Perhaps he’s malleable on that point, and it depends on circumstances.

Conservatives are not, generally speaking, big believers in government regulation as a means of ensuring the proper “operation” of the free market. In fact, that’s one of the teeny-tiny little blunders about which they’re still ticked at George W. Bush—“abandoning free-market principles to save the free-market system.” That muck just doesn’t wash.

Conservatives know what Adam Smith reasoned back in the 18^th Century—that self-interest ain’t all bad. In fact, it fuels a free-market system of exchange that works better, provides more opportunity, and yields more prosperity than any other option. Here’s the real bee in the bonnet for progressives: It also strangely results in more generosity. Where government has attempted to “ensure proper operation,” it has tended to undermine the free market and destroy all of its highly desirable fruits.

Conservatives know what Russian analyst Nikolai Kondratiev (fatally) told Stalin in the 1920s—what Dutchmen Jacob van Gelderen and Samuel de Wolff, in fact, knew as early as 1913: The free market cycles naturally through the equivalent of spring, summer, fall, and winter—over and over and over again—regardless of government attempts to “fix” it. Right now, we are heading into winter…a very, very harsh one indeed. One of the reasons it will be so harsh—and that we, in fact, risk not recovering this time—is precisely because of government intervention. We are repeating blow for blow the mistakes of FDR’s administration, except the stakes are far higher this time.

Conservatives also know what individuals such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman have so convincingly demonstrated through their respective works: that when the government gets out of the way, the free market takes care of itself—even self-corrects for errors and excesses. Let’s face it: We cannot avoid a harsh winter now. It is coming, whether we like it or not. But there are ways to mitigate its effects—by keeping government intervention out of the equation.

Johnson must have skipped the Cliff’s Notes for all of this stuff. Or maybe his handlers just haven’t shared it with him yet.

He did backtrack, saying he thinks government has far overstepped its bounds and needs to be more limited in scope. But how exactly do you limit the intrusion of government into your life when you ascribe to it the power to determine how big your business should or shouldn’t be—what you can and can’t do? That’s more than sliding down a slippery slope. That’s dangling off a high, jutting cliff by a single fingernail [insert whistling sound of someone falling and a loud splat here].

Huh. Now that I think about it, maybe RoJo is the guy to beat Feingold. But perhaps he’s running on the wrong ticket.

Do you think the 4^th Amendment provides some challenges to the income tax system?

Johnson had to be nudged by someone in the audience as to the basic content of the 4^th Amendment before he could come up with an answer. His excuse? (you’ll hear it peppering the entire 45-minute session) “I’m not a constitutional scholar.” No one was asking him to be. But it seems reasonable that he should know the content of the document he’ll be sworn to uphold if elected.

Once reminded, Johnson gets quite excited about personal property rights and how wonderful they are—though he never quite ties his thoughts back to the question he was asked. He also says, “Freedom is really economic freedom—to a great extent.”

Well, there’s an interesting quandary… How, exactly, does RoJo’s exuberant embrace of personal property rights and economic freedom square with his previous assertion that government should have the power to limit business? Or doesn’t he view a business—or any of the various forms of ownership in one—as personal property and economic freedom? Perhaps he ought to think these connections through to a logical conclusion as others of us have done.

Think you’ve heard it all? Not by a long shot. RoJo provided plenty more disturbing material.

Tune in for Part 2 tomorrow…