No, not a nicer office. (Most offices in DC are the same size). No, not better committee assignments, although that does sometimes come. No, not more interview requests (the squeaky wheel usually gets the grease, and that isn’t always a good thing).
No, the benefits of seniority is the ability to influence new members about the “Proper Role of Government” - especially when it comes to entitlements. Many would like us all to take a Ron Paul approach and simply vote NO on everything. Others think radical change is needed now before we slip further. I can respect both of those opinions.
I favor a third way. There is much in Washington I want to see changed and am working towards. None is more vital than ending the ever expanding reach of entitlement programs and social welfare systems that are a drain on our pocketbooks and the dreams and aspirations of many. I believe Ezra Taft Benson said it best,
HOW CAN PRESENT SOCIALISTIC TRENDS BE REVERSED?
This brings up the next question: How is it possible to cut out the various welfare-state features of our government which have already fastened themselves like cancer cells onto the body politic? Isn’t drastic surgery already necessary, and can it be performed without endangering the patient? In answer, it is obvious that drastic measures ARE called for. No half-way or compromise actions will suffice. Like all surgery, it will not be without discomfort and perhaps even some scar tissue for a long time to come. But it must be done if the patient is to be saved, and it can be done without undue risk.Obviously, not all welfare-state programs currently in force can be dropped simultaneously without causing tremendous economic and social upheaval. To try to do so would be like finding oneself at the controls of a hijacked airplane and attempting to return it by simply cutting off the engines in flight. It must be flown back, lowered in altitude, gradually reduced in speed and brought in for a smooth landing. Translated into practical terms, this means that the first step toward restoring the limited concept of government should be to freeze all welfare-state programs at their present level, making sure that no new ones are added. The next step would be to allow all present programs to run out their term with absolutely no renewal. The third step would involve the gradual phasing-out of those programs which are indefinite in their term. In my opinion, the bulk of the transition could be accomplished within a ten-year period and virtually completed within twenty years. Congress would serve as the initiator of this phase-out program, and the President would act as the executive in accordance with traditional constitutional procedures.
This view brings me back to seniority. There are not many radicals in Congress. Radicals tend to get nothing done in an institution designed to be slow and deliberative. Instead, it is the slow, steady, patient, and principled who effect real change. It is not as fast as some may like (it may shock you that I don’t like how long it takes), but if we think back to the time of FDR or 90% marginal tax rates, we have made progress. We have changed the debate, and many of us continue to fight the good fight. I could use more members to help me, including in Utah (especially the 2nd District). But regardless, I will continue to fight to make the change we all want - sometimes not as fast as you would like, and probably not as flashy or well spoken as you would like, but I won’t give up.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I agree with you Mr. Cannon. In politics, you cannot enter the ring, and expect to change everything. You can try, but you will only make enemies. You must instead steadily push the pendilum in your direction.
What concerns me, is that your voting record shows that you have often pushed the pendilum in the wrong direction.
I don’t ask for radical leadership. I don’t ask for sweeping changes overnight. What I do want, is someone who pushes the pendilum further to the right. This is why I respectfully believe that Jason Chaffetz is a better choice.
Mr. Chaffetz is experienced in the political ring. He also has an uncanning ability to build support, and to work with others, that I believe you simply have not demonstrated.
As far as seniority, and the ability that it gives one to influence new congressmen and women, I would respectfully submit that no amount of seniority will ever lead to the type of influence you suggest, if it is not also accompanied by the likability, and the ability to build support.
Jason Chaffetz has demonstrated this cabability as he has successfully organized hundreds of delegates, and thousands of voluneteers behind him. Something that you have never been able to do.
If you can not excite and organize your own constituancy behind you in order to bring about your re-election, it is doubtful that you will have a simliar inspiring influence over your fellow congressmen and women.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:06 pm
To Fred
You can change the link on my last comment if you like. I did not realize it was still there, via a cookie.
Hiram
May 21st, 2008 at 11:10 pm
[…] today Chris Cannon wrote a post on his blog that highlighted an important truth about politics. It is a truth that all young and ambitious […]
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:59 am
Some of the more powerful congresspeople in Washington have been in office for two terms. How do you explain this? Also, Jason has been to Washington on behalf of Utah in the past (when working for (Governor Huntsman). I hope which ever of you get elected, will honestly follow through with what you say, but right now you have had 12 years to create measureable progress and none of your successes meet any of my top 10 for Utah. Utah can’t afford to wait for leadership, we need it now!
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 am
Chris, are you saying we should stick with you just because of seniority? To me this is like staying in an abusive marriage. The abusive spouse comes back time and time again, apologizing, promising things will be different. But in the end, procrastinating the separation only prolongs the agony.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:45 am
Something else also strikes me as important in your comments.
You quote Ezra Taft Benson’s infamous speach, where he talks about the redistribution of wealth, and how to reverse a government that views its role as taking money from one neighbor, and handing it out to another.
Yet at the same time, you also voted for the Economic Stimulus Package. A bill that took money from one group of Americans, and then redistributed to another group. the very thing that Ezra Taft Benson was speaking out against.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I believe your third way has been tried during most of Bush’s term. It has resulted in the expansion of the welfare state. We need people who stand up and vote for what they believe in, those who do are not radicals.
You did not stand up for yourself when you disagreed with the renewal of the patriot act, but yet you voted for it. We need someone to stand on their principles, someone who is willing to be the one ‘No” out of 435. If we had more people like that, than we would see some change.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Chris,
Check this out,,,,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01kcqKd2Tag
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Empty rhetoric yet again. We NEED radicals in our government now more than ever. We need people who will vote on principle over and over as Ron Paul has done for DECADES, even when he has to do it all by himself. Although he might not accomplish much in the eyes of people such as you Mr.Cannon he accomplishes MUCH more than you could ever hope to.
Dr.Paul has created a powerful movement and it’s all predicated on TRUST in him by seeing his voting record of PRINCIPLE and OBEYING THE CONSTITUTION. If all the Congressmen and women would just do the same we would be the freest, most prosperous nation on Earth. Instead we are borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for an illegal and pre-emptive war because we are totally bankrupt.
Thanks, but no thanks Mr.Cannon. You seem like just another empty head neocon by looking at your voting record.
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Your calling of Ron Paul a “radical” shows enormous ignorance or willfull propaganda on your part. If you think Ron Paul is a radical, you have no idea whatsoever of what is wrong with America.
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Yes, Chris, I like President Benson’s great approach, as well. Voting NO on all new programs, voting NO on renewing all existing short-term programs, and voting YES on new legislation that would phase out existing long-term programs. Say, Chris, wouldn’t this policy mean voting NO on implementing vast new socialistic programs like prescription-drug benefits? Hmmm, let’s see, on H.R. 1 (Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) in the 108th Congress… Cannon votes YES, Paul votes NO. So, is President Benson’s approach truly your “third way” voting record, then, Chris? Funny, it sounds so very much more like Ron “Dr. No” Paul’s “radical” agenda to me. So, I appreciate your lip service to President Benson’s recommendations in this blog entry, Chris, but I’d much rather see you actually follow them on the floor of Congress.
In fact, I’ve read much of Benson’s “radical” writings about our Constitution and its principles and rightful liberty and our nation’s Founders and non-interventionism (see his excellent 1968 talk on foreign policy) and such–and I don’t know anyone in Congress who’s fought harder for what President Benson espoused than Ron Paul. Which I find incredibly ironic, since Dr. Paul isn’t even LDS while several of his peers are. You reject helping him because he’s accomplishing so little–and, yet, isn’t your (and others’) refusal to help him precisely WHY he’s accomplishing so little?
As you dismiss “radicals” and praise the “mainstream” for actually getting legislation passed, Chris, you might want to note that our “mainstream” has been flowing slowly and deliberatively leftward for more than a decade now. I’d say that it’s only because of “radicals” like Taft, Goldwater, Reagan, and Paul that this flow has met with some interference and occasional reverses. You claim to be making slow progress, Chris, but I find myself hard-pressed to see much progress at all–on the balance, things just keep “progressing” away from liberty toward collectivism. Maybe you should quit “going with the flow” leftward (or, more accurately, downward, as Reagan spoke of in “A Time for Choosing”), Chris, and join Dr. Paul and those like him in trying to lead our party back in the right direction–and be a conservative leader rather than some mainstream follower too afraid to make waves (except for the tiny insignificant sort).
So, Chris, your post above seems to be an attempt to justify remaining firmly in the mainstream. You seem to be saying “I won’t fight for good principles unless lots of my peers do, as well–instead of fighting for worthy but lost causes, I’m going to stay safely in the mainstream so that I can participate in getting [the wrong] things done. Maybe I’ll tweak the mainstream’s flow a bit now and then or even slow it down but that’s as far as I dare go–I won’t dare help try to reverse the mainstream’s course like Dr. Paul because that would be futile and I would fail.” If you want to preemptively throw in the towel on conservative/libertarian principles, Chris, then that’s fine–but folks like Dr. Paul and I and many others across Utah and beyond will keep fighting for these things with or without you, come what may.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I see the Ron Paulistas are out in force.
Is it a wonder to any of you that Ron Paul gets NOTHING done? There are not enough people in 10 districts to elect 10 Ron Paul’s let alone 200 plus needed to do anything, let alone 60 senators, or a President.
Chris is 100% RIGHT! He knows that in order to get where we want America to be you have to slowly lead people there. Like Rush always said, the easiest way to get someone to change their mind is to make them think they had the idea! Ron Paul just decides to be a petulant child or ornery old man.
That is not leadership and if Jason Chaffetz is a Ron Paul clone then I and all my friends will NEVER, EVER vote for him. Does he believe 9/11 was an inside job too? Does Jason believe that we should get rid of the FBI, the CIA, and every other organization that protects America? Does Jason Chaffetz believe we should go back to the gold standard, a ridiculous economic theory if there ever was one?
I have seen Jason speak many times. Hiram, I think you are so off base it is almost laughable. Jason won’t have an ounce of influence in Congress and judging from his past, he will be influenced by those around him.
If Jason is such a great conservative, why is he such a coward? Why does he not unseat Jim Matheson? I don’t care whose district he lives in, that doesnt matter. The question is, if he is so selfless, then run against Matheson.
I have just had it with these Dr. Paul disciples. Ron Paul has gotten NOTHING done, ever. He has created a coalition of 9/11 truthers, anti-everything nuts, anti-war leftists, and radical libertarians who think Ruby Ridge is a sign of the end times.
Anyone who wants to associate himself with people like that, as Jason Chaffetz does, DOES NOT…I repeat, DOES NOT, represent the vast majority of the 3rd District of Utah.
So you all can get on here and blast a good man like Chris Cannon, all you want. But in the end, the voters will decide and you will see, as the poll today showed, that the vast majority of Utah voters are sensible, compassionate, and reasonable and WILL vote for Chris Cannon.
Go get em Chris!
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Ron Paul votes first and foremost based on whether the Bill being considered is Constitutionally authorized. It seems to me that by doing so he is simply honoring his oath of office. What is so bad about doing that?
One thing that you must remember, and which you failed to point out, is that Ron Paul votes NO so very often because he has no authority to vote YES on many of those Bills. Congressional authority comes from The Constitution, not out of thin air.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
Chris,
Although I am glad to see you quote President Benson’s thoughts on reversing our welfare-state trends, I disagree with your ideas of how to implement that worthy idea.
First of all I do not agree with the idea that accumulating seniority is the ideal way to bring about needed changes in Congress. Seniority buys you influence with the established power brokers in Washington D.C. (like lobbyists and senior Congressmen who have vested interests in expanding these systems); i.e. it might buy you added influence with the same people that keep giving us more of what we don’t want or need . . . so what? The maxim “if you don’t want to keep getting what you’re getting, don’t keep doing what your doing” certainly applies.
I don’t particularly want to support a Congressman who has so little imagination and leadership capability that he proposes a ’stealth infiltration’ that entails voting to expand systems he disagrees with until such a time as he has accumulated so much “seniority” that he can start trying to pare down those programs.
The obvious problem with such a tactic is that the welfare state grows considerably faster than “seniority-infused” influence in Congress.
The fact that even when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and [consequently] they chaired all the committees that they kept habitually voting to expand government largesse and our deficits to foreign nations tells me that “Seniority” and “Influence” aren’t really what we’re missing.
Finally, I don’t agree that ‘radicals’ like Ron Paul [or Jeff Flake (R-AZ) who represents my parent’s district in Mesa, AZ and votes most similarly to Paul] have gotten less done than Congressmen like Cannon because of their clear voice and voting record on issues like government largesse. In fact, quite frankly, I would argue the reverse. Congressman Paul has the nation talking about our debts to China, the unwise expansion of the national Department of Education, the lower value of the dollar, and a host of other issues of vital importance to the health and vitality of our nation. Despite Janet’s claim that he has no support base, he has a book on the best-seller list even as I write this. His clear voice on uncompromised principles will continue to influence our nation for good long after he passes from the political scene. I’d call that some serious influence — something I’d much rather see in a Congressman than “seniority”.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:23 am
Janet,
Wow, you seem like you have a lot of anger towards Ron Paul supporters. In the interest of full disclosure, I will confess that I am Ron Paul supporter. In reading your diatribe against Ron Paul the one thing that stands out to me is that it skirts the issue and you have resorted to name calling and caricature.
In response to your argument that Ron Paul supporters get nothing done, sometimes doing something is much worse than doing nothing. It was Reagan who said that “government isn’t the solution to our problems, government is the problem.”
I am a Republican state and county delegate in the 2nd district and I was a county delegate for the 3rd district a few years ago. I personally have nothing against Chris Cannon and I’m sure he is a good man as you state in your post, but after talking with Jason Chaffetz and visiting his website I have come to the conclusion that he is more in touch with the conservative positions that I subscribe to, particularly on immigration.
But David Garber does bring up a good point about the expansion of the welfare state and the fact that Cannon voted for the prescription medicare drug act which is one of the largest expansions of welfare in the history of our country. Cannon also has taken a relatively lax view on immigration and has supported measures such as subsidizing in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants. I am not attacking Chris Cannon’s character so much as I am questioning his conservative credentials.
Jason Chaffetz is not a Ron Paul supporter (at least as far as I am aware). While I can afirm that Jason suscribes to many of the traditional conservative principles that Dr. Paul stands for (and which McCain repudiates), there are many issues that I believe he is on the wrong side of. For example, I believe that need to stop trying to get involved in the internal affairs (i.e. entangling alliances) of other countries such as Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Israel and let those countries work out their own issues rather than trying to be the world’s police. I also believe we spend far too much on the military (the US spends 8 times more on military than the G-8 nations combined). Also, while marriage between a mand and a women is something I fully support, a constitutional ammendment is not really appropriate because it would be using a democratic majority to impose a certain belief system up all of the US constituents.
But before you go maligning supporters of Dr. Paul, you would do well to realize that you are taking a huge swipe at a part of the Republican base that is very informed and highly politically motivated. At least Chris Cannon has said that he respects Dr. Paul, but your personal attacks and low politics are a poor reflection of the candidate that you support.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Janet, wow your vitriolic diatribe unleashes more pent up hostility than I have seen in a very long time. You misrepresent both Ron Paul’s and Jason Chaffetz’s points of view, and your attempt to link the two in order to debunk and discredit Jason tells me more about your character than it does about those you have maligned. Your shrill recital of your belief system makes it extremely difficult for me to take you seriously.
Let’s tone things down just a bit while we state documented facts instead of unsubstantiated innuendo, shall we? First you need to understand one thing about Ron Paul supporters. A large number of them are disenfranchised Republicans who are offended by the direction it’s RINO members (Chris Cannon’s name has often been mentioned as belonging to this group of legislators) have taken the party. These disenfranchised voters support Ron Paul because RP believes in and honors the Constitution (and his voting record proves it) while the RINOs merely pay it lip service in order to convince voters they represent their constituents, while their voting records say the opposite. You’ll find that Ron Paul supporters are the most educated and informed on ALL the issues of any other voter you will ever talk to. When I say educated and informed, I don’t mean parroting what they hear on TV news, or Rush, or Sean Hannity, I mean truly informed on the issues by reading books like “An Enemy Hath Done This” “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” :”Confessions of an Economic Hitman” “Shock Doctrine” and the list goes on and on. Many Ron Paul supporters have a better understanding of the economy than the Congressmen and Senators who represent them. You do yourself and Mr Cannon no favors by disparaging Ron Paul supporters.
Ron Paul has never made any statement that can possibly lead anyone to believe that he has any affiliation with, or supports the 9/11 truth movement. In fact, Ron Paul himself has stated that he does not buy into the theories promoted by the 9/11 truth movement. So your accusation there is baseless. Many Ron Paul supporters on the other hand, do support the 9/11 truth movement, not because they are blindly following what they are being told, but instead are willing to look into anomalies that leave the mind with so many unanswered questions as well as evidence that points in a direction different than the official story our government has put out for us to blindly latch onto. Ron Paul supporters are intelligent truth seekers, no matter where the truth can be found, whether it be related to Constitutional Principles, or current issues or government actions.
So to answer your question about Jason, he is not a Ron Paul supporter and I have never heard him say anything that would lead me to believe he believes anything the 9/11 truthers put out there. Nor have I heard anyone else say they have heard him comment favorably on it. You say you have heard him speak many times. Why don’t you ask him yourself where he stands on that issue and then get back to the rest of on it. Meanwhile we’ll be paying attention to the issues that matter today. Illegal immigration, fiscal responsibility, energy, transparency in government (including earmarks).
As to the Ron Paul positions you attempt to link to Jason, the answers are No, No, and No.
I’ve noticed that in this as in the campaigns of 2004 and 2006 and now again in 2008, Cannon supporters often resort to name calling instead of sticking to the issues. It appears you are trying to use the same underhanded tactic. Whether you are a paid shill for Chris or an independent voice stating your point of view in order to make sure your interests are represented in Washington, you would be better served to remove that method from your arsenal and instead stay on topic and make it about the issues rather than a smear campaign. Personal attacks will never help make either side look any better, so any claims of “But Jason’s supporters do it too,” only makes the person who says that look like a third grader trying to get their playmate into trouble. I know for a fact that Jason doesn’t approve of his supporters smearing his opponent using unfounded and baseless accusations, and I do hope Mr. Cannon would feel the same way.
As to the non-issue of Jason’s personal residence as it relates to this campaign. I know you’ve heard of gerrymandering. I learned about it in elementary school and I remember learning how politicians used it to effectively create the most friendly district possible in order to stay in office. The third district lines have changed before and are going to change again. We can argue about when this will happen, but the fact is that Jason’s right to run in the third district is protected by the state Constitution. This was so that you could always have good men who could represent you no matter where the previous politician in office chose to redraw the lines. You should be grateful for the wisdom of our state fathers who put this in the Constitution and leave it at that. It is not a real issue. Someone may at some point to remove Mapleton from the third district and then according to Mr. Cannon’s logic, he would no longer be eligible to represent this district. I think it’s time we drop that one and put it to rest already.
Jason’s decision to accept the invitation to speak in front of a group of Ron Paul supporters doesn’t make him a Ron Paul supporter any more than Chris Cannon getting up to speak in front of a group of Postal Workers makes him a likely candidate to “go postal” and shoot up the establishment where he works. If Ron Paul supporters choose to support him, I’m sure Jason’s happy to have their vote, just as Chris Cannon would be if they deigned to lend him their support.
Finally, the poll margin of error indicates that 250 people were contacted for that poll. 39% for Chris, 37% for Jason with 17% undecided and a 7% margin of error. Unless Chris is able to get the undecideds to vote his way, those are not good numbers for Chris.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Mr. Cannon has a good speech writer (and a good ad writer), but what he says and what his ads purport do not match his voting record, i.e., his radio ad touts him as one who “keeps government out of education.” Voting record — twice voting for “No Child Left Behind.” Go figure!
June 7th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Jynx–perhaps you ought to check the record before spouting it off, sir. The Library of Congress will vouch for Rep. Cannon’s record: He did NOT vote twice for NCLB! You just told a bold faced lie, whether unwittingly or not. Please be careful of your sources. Where in the world did you get that total piece of fiction? Not from LOC–probably where all the others originate–Jason Chaffetz! I have had numberous conversations with the man and sat in several meetings and NOT even ONE thing he says about Chris Cannon is true–NOT ONE. I check all of them out. I checked ALL OF THEM. IN SHORT: Cannon: No to NCLB (and the 1st time around, by the way, according to the congressional record, if you take the time to read its lengthy testimony, etc.) NCLB was not intended to do what it is doing. When it changed, by Dept. of Ed, which Cannon wants gone (see endfeded.org) Cannon voted NO!)
Cannon-No to taxed, debt, pork spending, porn, unfair utility taxed, and NOW ridiculous drilling permits getting in the way of drilling in UTAH for oil shale production ready to produce after Sept. Oh, didn’t know that? CANNON–swapping out bad trust lands for rich oil shale and mineral ripe ones we can produce on for YEARS.
Maybe you should pick up more than a newspaper once in a while. Maybe you should be involved with you congressman between elections and blog cycles. Maybe we should appreciate the 2nd most effective Congressman in UTAH HISTORY! Maybe we should take a look at the LOC and get an education so we can be literate in what we are reading: I suspect then people like Chaffetz, who has been fired from the Govs office for cause, and fired from Nuskin for cause and refused to help the Republican party unseat a DEMOCRAT IN HIS OWN DISTRICT and appears to love it when we are so ignorant and iliterate that we don’t REALLY know the voting record of our own congressman. (”Twice voting for “NCLB” oh brother.) Chaffetz is an opportunist who apparently would rather try unseating someone who has done something obviously much more conservative and effective than the Democratic Matheson is doing. That is telling. What reasoning is that? What is more scarey, why would be buy into that? Get some facts folks, it would do our district a lot of good. It really does matter!
June 9th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Rep. Cannon,
From the date on this post, it looks like I might be chiming in a little late. But despite my tardiness in this conversation, I feel that I have a few important things to say. It’s likely you’ll never read this comment, but few elected leaders have the time or desire to read their constituents’ letters, comments, and thoughts anyways. Ah, the efficiency of a good form letter.
Your post intrigues me, for the title alone seems to convey a tinge of Orwellian doublespeak, if not a fundamental misunderstanding of what true leadership consists of.
You here pay homage to Ezra Taft Benson’s magnificent document titled “The Proper Role of Government”. You even go far as to select a portion that seemingly fits in with your own platform and agenda.
However, you apparently glossed over the other parts that, as some other commenters have illustrated, clearly rebut your ideas of sound government. If you’ll re-read the article, you’ll see that the first subsection is titled “Government Should Be Based Upon Sound Principles”. Notice that last word, for its importance is paramount in understanding how government is properly implemented and managed. Benson did not choose seniority as the focus, nor practicality (which, as I argue here, is a far worse position to take). Instead, he emphasized principles.
You begin your post by claiming that “the benefits [sic] of seniority is the ability to influence new members” regarding government’s proper role. I’m sure you’ll recall a certain scripture which teaches us the importance of first obtaining the word before declaring it. The best person to teach the proper role of government is one who not only understands it fully, but lives it. I believe that your record in office makes you a substandard teacher of what government’s proper role truly is.
You may have already read it, but if not, I invite you to read this recent op-ed piece written by Utah state senator Bill Hickman (my comments here). See what he has to say about the seniority you so desire and praise.
You then mention those two magical blogging words—Ron Paul—that are sure to increase your website’s traffic. Claiming that his approach is to “simply vote NO on everything”, you demonstrate your ignorance regarding Paul’s voting record, as well as a misunderstanding of what principled (there’s that word again) votes imply. Voting no for something implies a “yes” vote for its opposite. When Paul (and others) vote against a piece of legislation granting the federal government increased power over education, for example, he is simply voting yes for allowing local and state governments to retain control and autonomy. Not only that, but by misrepresenting Paul’s voting record (claiming that he votes no on everything), you make the same blunder of which you accuse your opponent—that of misrepresenting one’s voting record. I invite you to actually look up Paul’s record and observe what his “yes” votes are. You may observe patterns based on principle.
Now, to your “third way”. You claim that the “slow, steady, patient, and principled” are those who effect “real change”. Going so far as to mention that “P word” we’ve been discussing, you here imply that you are slow (saying “it may shock you that I don’t like how long it takes”), steady (”many of us continue to fight the good fight”), and patient (”I will continue to fight to make the change we all want”). But where is your explanation of how you follow principle? Show us a pattern from your voting record, if you please, demonstrating the principles or proper government upon which you base your vote. I myself have failed to deduce any thus far.
A more recent blog post on your site highlights your allegedly “conservative” voting record. Using a single word (that has changed drastically over time; we used to call ourselves liberals) to categorize a collection of votes is hardly accurate, nor representative. As a commenter on that post illustrates, some of your votes show that while you may fit the modern Republican party’s version of “conservative”, you certainly spit in the face of traditional conservatism (preached by the two men you cite in this article, Benson and Paul).
So, what are we left with? Your article concludes by referencing seniority and then going on to talk about a bunch of other things. What was your point? Are you trying to say the word a few times so as to subliminally implant it in the minds of your readers, hoping it will sprout into a reason for which they will support you? Should we vote you back into office merely to have you moved up a notch on the totem pole?
I think not.
Remember that “P word?” We Latter-day Saints, who make up a large portion of your voting bloc, have been counseled to uphold “good, wise, and honest” leaders. Wisdom, in my mind, implies a consistent, principled stance that manifests its good judgment over time. Additionally, true leadership is determined not by seniority, but by integrity, virtue, and a just cause.
Towards the end of his article, Benson wrote:
A return to basic concepts and principles is much needed, and it is something you have failed to facilitate. You’ve had your chance. You’ve demonstrated your inability to “fight the good fight” (or more appropriately, the correct fight). What we need to change things are not more “slow, steady, and patient” politicians, but principled ones. In some political circles, they’re called “radicals”.
Know of any?