And here we come to the second reason I haven't written more on my blog. My wife, Jennifer, is currently the campaign manager of the
Jason Chaffetz for Congress campaign. She has been working as a volunteer with Jason for nearly two years. It was her idea to be a volunteer (read: not get paid) because she wanted her voice to remain her own. My role in this has mainly been to be a supportive husband (read: keep the home life as normal as possible) while she actively campaigns. My participation in the campaign has been somewhat limited: I was a State Delegate to the convention, I've attended some campaign rallys, I've talked with neighbors about Jason, and I've written a few on-line responses to some news articles. (I've even been blamed for some comments I didn't write.) Between the job, the scouts (see previous post) and home I've just been too busy to do much. However, tonight I have a little free time and
Chris Cannon has posted a fluffy
attack piece that just begs for a response. I posted a comment on his blog earlier today but as of this writing it hasn't been approved by the moderator yet. This blog entry will be more in-depth anyway. So here goes...
1. A Democrat
Chris Cannon opens up with a shot across the bow that Jason used to be a very vocal Democrat while he worked on the Dukakis campaign. As the
Salt Lake Tribune pointed out today, Jason's father's first wife married Michael Dukakis. They asked him to head up the Utah wing of the Dukakis campaign and he obliged. Personally, I was out of the country for most of that Presidential campaign so I don't even know what Dukakis' positions were other than he was a Democrat. At that time I was an "Independent" voter who leaned Republican in the way I voted. So I'll cede to Cannon on point one, Jason used to be a Democrat, said he supported Dukakis's politics, and now says he disagreed on many of the issues. If this matters to you, I'd suggest calling
Jason for an explanation; the "campaign number" is Jason's personal cell phone. For me, I know my positions have changed some since college. I only registered with the Republican party 8-10 years ago. (Ok, I'm staring 40 in the face, but I'm STILL 39)
2. Earmarks
Cannon claims that Jason is inconsistent in wanting to make sure that the Air Traffic controllers in Utah get the equipment they need to do the job, (among other things) and pledging not to ask for an earmark until there is serious reform of the process. Cannon's whole argument here hinges on his own assertion that the only way to accomplish the first goal is through earmarks. I believe that is a false assertion. Earmarks are congress' way of bypassing the executive bureaucracy and forcing money to be spent on specific projects. The people of California have essentially hamstrung their state government because they have used the initiative process to "earmark" portions of the state budget to special projects. Other members of Congress have taken the
"No Earmark Pledge" including Rep. Jim Flake and Sen. Jim DeMint. The pledge states:
“Earmarking,” the practice by which members of Congress divert taxpayer funding to special projects outside of the normal competitive and merit-based review process, has grown out of control and is open to waste and abuse. THEREFORE, I, __________________________, in my capacity as ________________________ (congressman/senator/president), do hereby pledge that I will personally support spending reform in Congress by refusing to seek, support, or enact earmarks during the appropriations process for fiscal year 2009.
Notice that earmarks are defined as funds outside the normal competitive and merit-based review process.
Local cities are budgeting money to pay for lobbyists to bring home the "earmark-bacon". I'm glad to be from West Jordan, the city without a plan to spend my tax dollars to try to get more of my tax dollars. Too bad Chris Cannon feels you can't get things done without earmarks.
3. Immigration
Cannon contrasts Jason's statement that he "rejects amnesty" with his proposal for a "temporary work visa" and calls them inconsistent. Cannon here equates "visa" with "amnesty." And I think his confusion comes from not understanding why people opposed his position on last year's immigration bill. The biggest issue with that bill was not that the fine imposed for illegal entry was less than our kids pay for a semester of college, but it was that the Z-visa was indefinitely renewable allowing someone here illegally to stay permanently. That was the amnesty to which everyone I talked with on the issue referred. Jason has said from the start that the only place for people to get in line for U.S. Citizenship is in their own country. The illegal immigration problem did not happen overnight, and it will not be solved overnight. It will take time. If the incentives to stay are removed, and legal immigration is improved (early steps in the process for Jason's plan) then the incentive will be to return home and apply legally. I would urge you to read through
Jason's plan. It is not easily summed up in sound-bites, but it reflects what many people feel is the best solution to the problem.
4. Energy
Read Cannon's contrast carefully here, if you can figure out how the "Then vs. Now" points are even related, let alone show some shift in position on Jason's part, please leave your insight in a comment below. The first claim is essentially true, Jason doesn't mention "Oil shale, ANWR, or coal-gasification" by name on his website, but he does refer to "extracting the resources which are in our own back yard." Silly me, I took that to mean "Oil shale, coal, ANWR, coastal-drilling, natural gas, etc." But Chris is right, Jason doesn't mention those by name. Jason also says that Congress shouldn't be picking the winners and losers in the energy game. Just look what happened when they anointed ethanol as the energy-messiah. The second statement, which was made a year ago, was arguing about how big a difference drilling in ANWR would make in the price at the pump. Given the fluctuations in the price of oil and the demand on the market (can you say China?), I'm not sure even MSNBC got that one right. But I still fail to see how that contradicts Jason's other statement about "extracting the resources in our own back yard."
5. On George Bush
I'll just repeat what Cannon says in his "Note:"
Jason uses the same line of argument against Chris Cannon that he used against President George H.W. Bush. In addition, Jason accepts PAC money from Utah Banks who continue to oppose Congressman Cannon’s efforts to force competition into the Credit Card and Banking markets.
Just because Jason had his picture taken with President (G.H.W.) Bush doesn't mean he supports him like a lap dog. Granted Jason's comments about Bush being beholden to the PACs that contributed to his campaign were made when he was a democrat, but I think that question should always be asked about any elected official, period. All one has to do is look at the recent FEC disclosure forms for both
Chaffetz and
Cannon to realize who is beholden to whom. Lastly, Cannon has the audacity to attack Jason for the size of
his house when Cannon lives
here? Talk about cajones.
6. On campaign debt
Jason has said in the past that it is OK for a candidate to "invest in his own campaign." The quote is from four years ago so I can't get the direct source, without paying the Trib., to verify Cannon's implication that this was in reference to campaign debt as well as personal campaign contributions. Jason has taken the stand that campaign debt is "unnecessary" and "How you operate your campaign is indicative of how you will operate in Washington." I really don't see how this is contradictory. The LDS church urges their members to "refrain from debt." They describe debt as an "ever present taskmaster" and other unflattering descriptions. Yet they acknowledge that there are some things that often require debt: Such as a mortgage or education. Those who can manage schooling or buying a house without incurring debt, or paying off those obligations early should be applauded.
Dave Ramsey encourages people to plan to "pay cash" for a house. In other words, incurring debt is neither wrong nor immoral, but showing that it can be done without incurring debt is the example we should uphold for everyone to see.
7. On Governor Huntsman
Chris Cannon repeats the Salt Lake Tribune's line that Jason "slammed" the Governor in his convention speech. The Governor called it a "cheap shot." Here is the actual quote from Jason's
convention speech:
"And by the way, Jon Huntsman, as much as I like you, you're wrong about Global Warming; it's a farce."
I've heard some pretty vitriolic statements in politics but I'm not sure this would make the "top 100 slams on politicians" list (no site to link to, some one should make one). Then Cannon seems to think it's two-faced to question the Governor's policy and still use the public quotes the Governor made about Jason's service while campaign manager and chief of staff. The Governor's spokesperson can say whatever she'd like about the intention of those statements, but they
were made publicly, by the Governor, in reference to Jason's service when the press were looking for reasons behind Jason's departure and before there was political motive to remain neutral.
If you've read this far, Thanks!
If you have a different take on why these things are more contradictory than they seem, I'd love to hear it; Leave a comment.
