As a state
delegate, I vetted for two races, U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representative.
I enjoyed meeting with the candidates and participating in the caucus and the
convention.
The Senate
race is between Mike Kennedy and Mitt Romney. I voted for Mike Kennedy as
I have far more confidence that he is a strong conservative and will vote
accordingly. With his history in the Utah House of Representatives, he
has a solid voting record that shows he is what he says he is. Some
examples of his stances are that he has consistently voted against tax
increases and spending. He is strongly against federal government
expansion and intrusion such as with healthcare, education, and the Utah Public
Lands issues in which he pointed out that the BLM has been militarized and is
unaccountable to the people. He is not voting for any process that
encourages federal power over the people. I saw Mike Kennedy in the
debate, and at candidate meet and greet events as he talked with
delegates. I was impressed with how very even tempered his nature
was. He never got ruffled or hot under the collar from my fellow
delegates, or his fellow candidates. That ability will play well for him
when he is dealing with a hostile media, or working in the shark tank of
D.C. He has demonstrated he is a solid conservative who’s shown he
stands on principle even in the face of adversarial heat and pressure.
Mitt Romney
did not participate in the candidate debate. I attended a candidate meet
and greet event for him on which he did most of the speaking and allowed
minimal questions. He is definitely charming and a skilled public
speaker. He addressed general republican principles but was a little
difficult to pin down on specifics. So it was a bit more challenging to
get a clear picture on where he stands. I referred to videos posted by
fellow delegates of additional Romney events throughout the state in which my
experience was reinforced. On occasion he’d get annoyed when he was pressed to
be more specific which I think is silly and senseless. Some points he
made were that the states take care of issues such as the uninsured,
transportation, education and that he would push back against the federal
government to bring the obligation of those things back to the states. He
put a lot of stress on the budget and stated that because of his relations with
other senators and politicians he will be able to get things done.
Although he could talk well, I have great concern that there isn’t a solid
track record that demonstrates a conservative history consistent with his
claims. He has at times in the past supported liberal policies,
liberal candidates and has flipped back and forth on issues depending on how he
perceived the political winds to shift. When my job is to vet a candidate
to assure he will be loyal to the party platform, I cannot say I have
confidence Romney will do that. I also find his claim that he will be
more influential than a junior Senator could be because of his national “clout”
to be dubious and a weak qualifier. Mike Lee went to D.C. as a junior
senator, has stood on conservative principle and has been a strong voice in the
Senate. When the folks at home are more concerned with draining the
swamp, Romney is pointing out that he’s one of the “elite” insiders. How
does this claim show he’s got what it takes to stand up against the
“establishment” when principle is on the line? Unfortunately, this claim
indicates the opposite to me. While Mitt Romney has charm and is a good
public speaker, I can’t say he is a principled candidate that we can trust to
stand for Utah.
The
House race is between Chris Herrod and John Curtis. I voted for
Chris Herrod as I felt he was the candidate that was most solidly in-line with
conservative principles and the party platform. He also has his
experience in the Utah House to back him up. I spoke with Herrod at a
candidate meet and greet. He was very well versed, on any issue put
before him and addressed them very matter-of-factly and in a straight forward
manner. Some examples of topics he addressed were immigration
issues--supporting reforms to make legal immigration better while working to
stop the influx of illegal immigration; state sovereignty in regards to public
lands issues; education belonging at the local level, he was against any
federal overreach, and supports President Trump’s conservative agenda.
Truly he is a straight shooter down the party platform and his knowledge had
breadth and was indepth. I also meet with John Curtis at a candidate meet and
greet. He was well-spoken and smoother in his self-presentation than
Herrod was. He also is very well versed in subjects and took a great deal
of time to meet with the delegates and to discuss concerns. I noticed on
occasion he used some clever evasive language to avoid taking the hard stance
on some topics, such as on his choice to gather signatures; the need to stop
illegal immigration, claiming to align with the President on the “broader goal”
just not on the “how-tos”; and avoiding the stickiness of LGBT rights vs.
religious liberty stating that society needs to work those issues out, but
declining to say how society does that or how policy would be made. Curtis is a
former democrat which makes me wonder about his convictions. Hopefully it
was a true conversion and not an electoral necessity but some things cause me
to wonder such as those evasive answers. He also claimed to vote “No” on
the Omnibus spending bill that was passed but neglected to mention that prior
to this vote, he voted “Yes” to move it from committee and bring it to the
floor for debate and vote. His subsequent “No” vote was useless and would
have been more effective defeating the Omnibus bill in committee where the vote
was close and his fellow republicans needed his support. It was
unfortunate that he departed from his colleagues when the real crucible was
hanging in the balance in committee. Curtis was an excellent public
speaker, well versed and made a great deal of effort to talk to delegates. But
it concerns me when he avoided some hard stances with carefully crafted
non-committal answers. Chris Herrod was definitely knowledgeable,
being very well versed in every issue, always answered in a straight forward
manner, and is a definitely a solid conservative.
No comments:
Post a Comment