The Daily Herald hits the nail on the head with their editorial today in regards to the Farm Bill. If you need more reasons to oppose the farm bill other than it is not something the federal government should be subsidizing, here are seven more reasons.
Robert Gehrke of the Salt Lake Tribune offers us another glimpse at one of my opponent’s many misleading assertions and statements.
One of the nagging issues in the 3rd District battle between Jason Chaffetz and Rep. Chris Cannon is the fact that Chaffetz actually lives in the 2nd District. Now, as we explained in a story last month, there’s nothing legally wrong with that, but it could pose political problems for GOP voters who wonder why he didn’t run against Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson in the district where he lives.
But Chaffetz’ campaign and his supporters have put forth an argument that needs a fact check. In a letter to delegates sent before the Republican State Convention, Rep. Craig Frank, a Chaffetz supporter, appears to try to clarify the situation, but instead muddies it with pretty overt misinformation.
“Some of you have expressed concerns to me about the fact that Jason lives in Alpine — two miles outside the Third District,” Frank writes in the letter. “Let me assure you that this is not a problem. As a legislature, we have already approved a new boundary for the Third Congressional District which wil include Jason’s home in Alpine after 2010. In reality, Jason lives closer to you than either Mr. Cannon or Mr. Leavitt and can certainly relate to the issues that matter most to all of us.”
This is the same logic that Chaffetz has offered.
But Chaffetz knows better and Frank certainly does.
After all, Frank was one of the legislators called into special session last year to adopt the four-district map in a frantic effort to get Congress to buy off on Utah’s fourth seat in exchange for a representative from Washington, D.C. — a proposal that Chaffetz opposed.
But there are two reasons the old four-district map will never take effect: population and politics.
First, population trends mean the districts will have to be changed after the 2010 Census if for no other reason than to account for the population growth.
Second, and this is the big one, politics will rule.
Re-drawing political boundaries is one of the goriest exercises around, fueled by boundless ambition and giant egos, not to mention vendettas and self-preservation, as politicos try to squeeze out opponents and stack the electorate in their favor. Last time around, The Wall Street Journal called Utah’s map one of the worst, most politically craven exercises in the country — a Republican scam.
So, when legislative leaders and GOP operatives meet with new Census data to redraw the 2012 map, you can bet anyone with political ambitions through 2022 will want to have a hand in it, there will be some creative lines drawn, and the map will look very, very different.
There is no telling if Chaffetz will ever end up back in the 3rd District, and it won’t be until 2012 if it does happen. That is the fact, and if it’s not an issue, as Chaffetz and Frank claim, they should be honest with voters about it.
But not all of the people, all of the time. My opponent has leveled some serious charges about me and my record during this campaign. Some of these are malicious, others are just because he doesn’t understand what he reads and doesn’t understand the job he is seeking. Some of the more ridiculous include:
Saying I support “No Child Left Behind” - I DO NOT.
(http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/254041/58/) or see (http://www.chriscannon.com/issues/education)
Saying I have abandoned conservative principles - I HAVE NOT.
(Would someone who abandoned conservative principles be one of only THREE members of Congress to vote against expanding SCHIP? (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-1184) or still maintaining the highest ACU rating in Utah.(http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#UT)
I have serious ethical problems - I BELIEVE IN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT.
The only ethical issue ever raised about my office was by the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW. Not one of their allegations has any merit. For my opponent to use an organization that prides itself on being , “the progressive counterweight to Judicial Watch” (http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews/2005/10/02/build/state/55-corrupt-label.inc) is beyond the pale for a Republican. CREW is even funded by George Soros…but my opponent still tries to use their attacks.
But those are not the most recent or the most ridiculous. My opponent has been on the radio and in print, telling people that “Chris Cannon voted for the largest budget, and hence the largest deficit, in American history.” THAT IS 100%, NOT TRUE, and I will show you, and my opponent why. When I do, I call upon him to repudiate his previous comments and stop lying to the voters of the 3rd District.
Here is the truth…
Last year, Democrats were unable to pass the individual appropriations bills needed to fund the government. They wanted to spend too much and tax too much, and Republicans put a wrench in their plans. So near the very end of the term, in December of 2007, they packaged all the spending into one bill, called an omnibus budget bill. This budget was the largest, most expensive bill, and raised taxes on all Americans.
A bill came to the floor of the House on June 22nd, 2007. To some, it may appear that this is the budget vote, but it was not. This was just a piece of what eventually became the Omnibus Budget bill. The vote on final passge of this bill, called the ”Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008″ (Omnibus budget bill) was 247 - 178, I VOTED NO. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-542)
Since we conservatives do not have a majority, the largest budget in history that my opponent refers to, eventually passed the House, WITHOUT my support. It contained 9,800 earmarks that cost over $10 billion. I would NOT vote for such waste. It then went to the Senate. The Senate then began the long process of amendment, “speechifying”, and debating. This lasted until December 17th, 2007.
After that was done, it came back to the House. We then began voting on a few amendments the Senate added to the bill. We voted on one Democrat Senate amendment, again I voted NO. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-1171) We voted on another Democrat Senate Amendment, again I voted NO. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-1172)
Unfortunately, again, because Conservatives like me are not in the majority, those amendments passed and the omnibus budget was agreed to, despite MY OPPOSITION.
Enter my opponent NOT UNDERSTANDING what he reads online or how the House he seeks to join, operates. The falsehood he continues to tell stems from the following.
Democrats decided, in order to pass the budget, they had to remove funding for the troops and the war, since that was too much of a hot button issue, and left that funding to be voted on another time. But, in order to be paid for that year, that vote had to take place before we left Washington in 2007. So Democrats decided to vote on troop funding and war funding as a single amendment, AFTER the budget had already passed.
On Decemmber 19th, 2007, I voted FOR funding the troops. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-1186). As you can see from the link, MORE REPUBLICANS than DEMOCRATS voted for this amendment. Common sense would tell you that MORE DEMOCRATS should vote for their budget then REPUBLICANS. Democrats who favored retreat from Iraq voted against that amendment because it funded the troops. In other words, the vote that my opponenet hangs his hat on, was a vote FOR FUNDING THE TROOPS - NOT THE BUDGET!
Because the vote is listed as an amendment to the budget, it appears that it is the last budget vote, but as I hope I have explained, it was not. If you want to see the entire timeline of these votes, you can visit the following link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?bill=h110-2764.
So here are the FACTS:
I hope he will stop using this blatantly false attack among the others I have listed and will list in the future. The voters of the 3rd District deserve an honest debate.
What an exciting day today was. It seems that primaries are something we have become used to in the 3rd District, and this cycle is no different. But much like the last ones, we are confident that the voters of the 3rd District will recognize my record and my ability to influence change in Washington, and send me back to serve.
First off, I would like to thank all of the many volunteers, friends, delegates, and others who came out today to support and help me. I don’t think I will ever be able to say thank you enough for everything you do.
Second, I would be remiss if I didn’t thank David Leavitt and Joe Ferguson for running honorable, respectful, and civil campaigns. I would also like to thank David Leavitt for his grace in a difficult time. Contrary to what has been written in the papers and the reaction by some of the delegates, there was no pre-arranged coordination of his endorsement. He felt strongly that if he wasn’t to be the nominee, that I should be. Civility was a hallmark of David’s campaign today and I am sure, campaigns of the future. He practices what he preaches. He knows that civility and respect move mountains in Washington and are values Utahns hold dear.
We move on from today knowing that the voters of the 3rd District are thoughtful and know my record of working for them. We move on from today knowing we will continue to be the target of personal attacks and distortions, but assured in the power of our positive message to move voters.
As I said earlier, voters are rightfully angry with Washington. $3.50 gasoline is immoral, government spending is out of control, health care is broken, and border security needs more than rhetoric. In all these issues and more, Congress IS the problem, but being IN Congress is not the problem.
The Club for Growth, the National Taxpayers Union, the Americans for Tax Reform, National Journal, the Family Research Council, Sean Hannity, the National Rifle Association, and many more individuals and organizations that care about the issues we hold dear, consistently show that my record DOES NOT reflect the status quo, but is a record of holding firm to our principles and accomplishing much, even when our voice is in the minority.
As Ezra Taft Benson said in “The Proper Role of Government”:
Unlike the political opportunist, the true statesman values principle above popularity, and works to create popularity for those political principles which are wise and just.
That is what I do everyday in Washington. I work to convince 434 other members of the House and 100 Senators and a President, that our values are America’s values. It isn’t easy and it doesn’t happen overnight. The framers designed our government to move slow. Both in expansion and contraction.
But when I can, as I did this year, get arch-liberal John Conyers to support a tax moratorium on the Internet, it is an indication of what is possible. This isn’t accomplished by bombastic speeches or lofty rhetoric. It is done by reasoned discourse and firm principles.
I hope you will join us as we take this message to the district and around the country through November. I ask you to sign up and volunteer to help and donate what you can to this cause. Today is the start of the next phase of the campaign that ends with re-election in November. Thank you for your support and let’s get to work!
I was honored to find out tonight that I was named one of the 2007 “Defenders of Economic Freedom“ by the Club for Growth. After carefully analyzing the following votes, the Club for Growth named me the 13th most economically conservative member of the entire 435 member House of Representatives. The rating examines legislative actions that reflect the Club’s immediate pro-economic growth policy goals, including:
- Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
- Death tax repeal
- Cutting and limiting government spending
- Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
- Expanding free trade
- Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
- Replacing the current tax code
- School choice
- Regulatory reform and deregulation
I believe those votes reflect the will of the voters of the 3rd District. Coupled with my seniority on three committees, I believe I am part of the solution. Returning many other Republicans to their pro-growth, tax cutting, fiscally responsible ways. My opponents should note that Jim Matheson is 194th. If Jason Chaffetz and David Leavitt think my voting record is worse than Jim Matheson’s (As Jason said on the Bob Lonsberry Show), then perhaps they should take a look at this scorecard and ask themselves why they are trying to replace someone with seniority and a voting record reflecting the will of the district. I will be available to discuss this and many other issues at the convention and with your help we can get 60%, and I can spend the next few months helping to elect other conservatives to Congress so we can take our party and our country back!
Honorable Delegate:
Congratulations on being a thoughtful and public service oriented delegate to the State Republican Convention
I am Mark Cannon, Chris Cannon’s uncle. I have known and observed all Utah Congressmen since I served as Administrative Assistant for Utah Congressman Henry Aldous Dixon. I had subsequent vantage points as Chairman of the BYU Political Science Department, Administrative Assistant to Chief Justice Warren Burger (who I persuaded to accept the invitation to speak at the BYU Law School dedication) and in directing the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. With the exception of Congressman Jim Hansen, I have not seen any Utah Congressman who has shown as much leadership in Congress as Chris Cannon.
Attached are some documents about Chris. (Click here to see them) Hopefully, these materials will be help you see Chris’ significant accomplishments and leadership, and the great value of keeping his knowledge, experience, commitment, energy, diligence and seniority working to benefit Utah and the nation. As a result of his knowledge and experience with issues characteristic of the western states such as mining, reclamation, land use and tourism, his Congressional colleagues in the Western Caucus in Congress, who know each others’ strengths intimately, elected Chris to be their Chairman and then re-elected him for two more terms giving him six years of this leadership role. To illustrate, he successfully led a continual fight to permit development of oil shale – that can ultimately bring millions of dollars to the Utah Treasury and help lower fuel prices.
Chris’ knowledge, skills and determination enabled him to persuade Congress to enact more of his bills than any other Utah Congressman of the past 30 years except former Congressman Jim Hansen.
The press has noted that his effectiveness has caused colleagues to urge that he be jumped over more senior Members to be the leading Republican on the Government Reform and Resources Committees.
Those of us who believe in traditional values are alarmed at the cultural war against family values. However, Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council stated that Chris Cannon “is to be commended for supporting public policy that values human life, protects our religious liberties, and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family.” Chris fights across the board for family values.
We all worry about the constant growth of government. It takes courage to resist the interest groups. Yet that is what Chris has done. Just this month, Duane Parde, President of the National Taxpayers Union wrote: “If every Member of Congress had voted as responsibly as Chris Cannon did in 2007, Americans could enjoy much lower taxes and less waste in government.” He has consistently been identified as a budget hawk among the top of his colleagues.
Many Americans are frustrated with Congressional liberalism and bureaucratic regulation. I believe that the best way to solve growing problems with practical, common sense solutions is to re-elect Chris and to elect many more like him, who have similar endurance and fortitude.
Your support for Chris would be greatly appreciated by him and all of his supporters! We hope that you will be able to join us on Saturday at the Cannon for Congress booth to ask any questions that you might have.
Very best wishes to you in all of your good undertakings.
Mark Cannon
Dr. Mark W. Cannon
It seems that cracking down on illegal immigration ACTUALLY decreases illegal immigration.
U.S. authorities attribute the drop to tighter security and a new program in the Tucson sector that has prosecuted more than 3,000 migrants for crossing illegally since it started in January. They face jail sentences from a few days to six months.
But none of the migrants interviewed by The Associated Press knew about the new prosecution program. Those on their way home said the main deterrents were tougher security and the dangers of the desert, including bandits who rob and even rape migrants on both sides of the border.
No one wants to see a fellow human being harmed, and the border partrol should do all it can to prevent robbery, rape, or any other crime against any person inside the United States.
But what this story shows is that the border fence (which I voted for), the hiring of more border agents (which I voted for), the authorization for states to enforce immigration law (which I voted for), and ending catch and release (which I voted for), are all taking a serious bite out of illegal immigration.
The U.S. Border Patrol has added 200 officers since last year to the Tucson sector, and a total of 3,000 agents now search the vast desert for illegal migrants by truck, horse, ATV and helicopter. They now have four drones scanning for drug and migrant smugglers, as well as two newly built 12-foot walls with steel posts near Nogales and in Sasabe.
All these measures I supported, voted for, and have spoken on. (contrary to popular belief or the false charges of some of my opponents). We must solve the border problem BEFORE we can talk about how many workers we need as a nation.
That is where I stand. Always have, always will.
