
Front Page David's Blog Favorites Vilka A.N.O.C.

David Rodeback's Blog

Local Politics and Culture,
National Politics,
Life Among the Mormons,
and Other Stuff

LocalCommentary on Twitter

Most Recent Comments

May 1, 2012

Accumulated Thoughts

. . . On the political, economic, and constitutional fronts.

The Big Holiday

It's May 1, International Workers Day. The Occupy-This-and-That crowd has well-publicized plans which, as usual, include relatively few people who don't seem to work much trying to get in the way of lots of people who do. We'll see how it goes. Meanwhile, how many of us remember that this day is the big socialist/communist holiday? (I mean Soviet and Chinese communists, among others, not just anyone to the left of Utah's robust far-right demographic.)

If the self-proclaimed 99%, which so despises the 1%, had any significant awareness of the world at large or its history, they'd realize that in the countries which have celebrated International Workers Day most vigorously, the 1% have been richer in comparative terms, and the 99% have been poorer in absolute terms, than has ever been the case in the modern Western world's free-market economies.

The Eye of the Beholder

The far right (which doesn't like the word "far" used to describe them) keeps telling us that Mitt Romney is no conservative. In fact, a lot of them say he's a liberal or even a socialist. Meanwhile, the Big Media Acronyms and the American left generally are worried that he has a secret agenda. Horror of horrors, he may actually be the most conservative Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan -- which isn't saying much -- and he may actually be planning to do conservative things if elected!

The New York Daily News ran a story Sunday with this headline: "Real Romney: real scary." The subhead said, "Beneath the moderate veneer, a right-wing agenda lurks." It takes the Reagan comparison even further: "Romney has actually become the most far-right major party nominee in generations, eager to make the Reagan and Bush presidencies look almost liberal by comparison." Their expansion on this theme doesn't actually place him to the right of Reagan, but the perception is the point here.

I'm no moderate, and neither is Mitt Romney, but if the ideologically poisoned on both sides are this worried, I'm starting to think Romney may be better than I realized.

What's Next?

I confess: I'm enjoying this.

First we heard about the Romneys strapping their dog kennel (dog included) atop their car and going on vacation. That was supposed to horrify us, I think, but it really only bothered people who won't be voting for Romney anyway. Then we found out that President Obama has actually eaten dog. Oops, on to the next thing.

Guess what? Romney's great-grandfather was a Mormon polygamist. (So was mine, by the way, but not the same polygamist.) The Republican backlash on this one during the primary debate season was pretty good, something about Romney being the only major Republican candidate to have just one wife. But Obama beats that backlash by a mile. His father was a polygamist. His grandfather was a polygamist. And his great-grandfather had one more wife than Romney's polygamist great-grandfather.

Is it wrong that I'm enjoying this? I can hardly wait to see what distraction comes next, and how it will backfire.

I liked Romney's line the other night: "It's still about the economy, and we're not stupid!"

Limited? Constitutional?

We'll have to see what the US Supreme Court's decision on ObamaCare actually is, but in the meantime, we've had a vivid illustration of a key difference between the right and the left. The right holds that the US Constitution limits the powers of the federal government. The left can't imagine that the Court would overturn ObamaCare, because extending health care to all is so obviously a good thing. Let's leave disputing the goodness of it for another day and focus on the idea of limited government.

Here's another example: the proposed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Since we all know that violence against women is a bad thing -- as is violence against men, by the way -- for the left this proposed federal law must be both good and constitutional. Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that the bill will actually have the desired affect of reducing violence against women. Congress should pass it, the President should sign it, and the Court should find it constitutional -- because violence against women is a bad thing, and opposing it is a good thing. Right?

Both my Senators, Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, voted against reauthorizing VAWA last week. Lee made the argument: The US Supreme Court has already held that Congress has no power to regulate or punish domestic violence. It's not that domestic violence is good, because it's not. It's that the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the power to legislate in such matters. That is reserved to the states and local governments. So VAWA is unconstitutional -- in addition to being, per the Heritage Foundation, wasteful and redundant, which are separate issues.

Unemployment Numbers

The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank has some interesting economic graphs at its web site. Among many others, these include the U3 unemployment rate, which is the one we usually see in the news. These are people without jobs, who have actively looked for work in the last four weeks. I think we get a better picture from U6, which also includes adults who need work but have given up looking, those who can and would like to work but haven't looked lately, and the working but underemployed.

That U3 has hovered between 8 and 10 percent for years now, which is appalling. But the U6, which I argue is a better measure of actual conditions, grew from about 8 percent at the beginning of the recession nearly to 17.5 percent in late 2009. Only in the last several months has it begun to decline, dropping last month below 15 percent -- which is still terrible.

A fringe candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Utah went around saying that the real unemployment rate in Utah is well above 30 percent. Listening to his speech at the state convention the other day, I finally figured out how he got that number. He's counting the retired, the disabled, and stay-at-home parents as unemployed. This is not altogether different from the recent declaration by an Obama surrogate that, as a stay-at-home mother of five, Ann Romney never worked a day in her life. (In case you're curious, this candidate was eliminated on the first ballot, as tends to happen with fringe candidates.)

Here's one more sad but interesting graph: "Average (Mean) Duration of Unemployment." This particular number is twice as high as it has been after other modern recessions, meaning that people are staying unemployed twice as long. Right now, it's just barely below its peak, which is just over 40 weeks.

This President, That President

From time to time President Obama and his dutiful minions have suggested that he is like Ronald Reagan. This is a bit difficult to swallow, for those of us who actually remember and admire Reagan. Obama has invited comparisons to FDR, too, which he thinks is a good thing, conservatives think is a bad thing, and many find much easier to accept. He has resisted comparisons to Jimmy Carter, the presidential poster child for chronic economic malaise.

Now he's channeling President Richard Nixon, and not in a good way. Here's how the Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel began her article last week:

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

She also wrote:

Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers -- to jail, to fine, to bankrupt -- are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules.

This enemies list is about money, which is about reelection (or vice versa).

The Heritage Foundation's Rory Cooper wrote, "President Obama’s campaign has managed to make Nixon’s list look quaint, legitimate and even routine," and notes that it's public, at an Obama campaign web site called "Truth Team."

. . . Which brings this collection of accumulated thoughts to a suitably bizarre conclusion.

April 21, 2012

My Post-Convention Report

Miscellaneous notes on today's state Republican convention, including the exciting, the intriguing, the wacky, and the weird.

I left for today's Utah Republican Party state convention in Sandy at about 7:30 a.m., and I was home before 10 p.m. I could have left after casting my last vote and learning the result, but, as I told my precinct when I ran for state delegate, I don't leave these conventions until they're over. And after we adjourned, I still had to hang around and chat with a few fellow delegates.

Here are some miscellaneous notes, impressions, and a few bits of analysis of the experience, but, I think, little or no personal advocacy of any candidates. (I've done enough of that here this week.) I won't try to report all the results; you can read that elsewhere. And I won't list all of the motions from the floor. Most were coherent and sensible, or at least germane -- but quite routine, unlike a motion or two I'll mention below.

Venue, Etc.

We were at the South Towne Exposition Center in Sandy, which in most respects was just fine. However, the food is better at the Salt Palace, and the wireless Internet is far better at the Salt Palace -- as in, actually functional.

State Party Chair Thomas Wright ran the convention expertly and with a certain charm. This was very widely appreciated.

The electronic voting was a big hit with the delegates. Without it, we'd have had to work late into the night -- or perhaps through the night. Or the weekend.

Here's an improvement. Two years ago, several delegates arrived too late, after credentialing had closed. The chair asked for unanimous consent to suspend the rules and allow them to be credentialed and participate (and, importantly, represent their precincts). A handful of delegates objected, so it didn't happen. The objections were widely regarded as very petty by numerous delegates. This year, one delegate found herself in a similar plight. This time the motion to suspend the rules was presented as requiring a two-thirds vote. It passed, and I was aware of no nays.

The delegates were eager to move the agenda along, but not at the expense of the candidates or the process. For example, various items of non-urgent party business were postponed by motion and vote to the organizing convention in 2013, but motions to dispense with or shorten candidate speeches before rounds of voting failed badly, even though the hour was late.

Delegates, Candidates, Primaries

Senator Orrin Hatch very narrowly missed the 60% vote needed to avoid a primary -- narrowly as in, about three dozen votes in nearly 4,000. Two years ago, it was widely believed that his candidacy wouldn't survive today's convention at all, so today's result was a pretty good win, if not a complete one. The conventional wisdom (no pun intended) is that he'll fare better in a primary than at convention. This is probably true. The situation begged comparison with Senator Robert Bennett's defeat in the 2010 convention, but this was a different year; a different set of delegates; a different, more conservative incumbent; a different and weaker field of challengers; and a much better campaign by the incumbent. (See this interesting Fox News report about Hatch's campaign to win delegates.)

It's not over by any means, and Dan Liljenquist, who will share the primary ballot with Hatch, is publicly optimistic. But it's hard to see how the convention wasn't his best shot to beat Hatch.

The delegates in 2012 seemed older than in 2010, and calmer and better behaved. There seemed to be a sense among many of them that the adults had arrived to regain control of the party, after what happened in 2010. I think a sense that this was needed helps account for this year's record caucus attendance, too. For what it's worth, former Senator Robert Bennett received three ovations, when he received a party service award and spoke briefly. He himself was very gracious, and I enjoyed his quip about how much he enjoys "the freedom of not having to ask Harry Reid for permission to leave town."

Gary Herbert managed to escape a primary. Unsurprisingly, Morgan Philpot was the last of the more-conservative-than-thou challengers to be defeated.

John Swallow faces a primary with Sean Reyes for Attorney General. Swallow won today about 55 to 45, but he's in trouble. The momentum and (in my view) the substance are with Reyes, whose name recognition will improve a lot more than Swallow's between now and the primary. And there's a sort of good-old-boy vibe about Swallow, which didn't seem to sit well with a lot of delegates, and may not sit well with Republican voters at large. Swallow is current Attorney General Mark Shurtleff's anointed successor, which contributes to the good-old-boy vibe and may hurt him in the end -- especially after something Shurtleff said later in the convention, which I'll mention below. This will be an interesting primary to watch.

Rep. John Dougall came out of nowhere in the last several weeks to send multiterm incumbent Auston Johnston into a primary race for State Auditor. Introduced and endorsed by both the president of the Utah Senate and the speaker of the Utah House of Representatives, Dougall finished on the short end of a roughly 55-to-45 vote. But I think momentum and the incumbent's good-old-boy vibe might have a similar effect in this race as in the Attorney General race. My money's (figuratively) on Dougall, if he can figure out how to excite voters about a race for State Auditor.

At past conventions Congressman Jason Chaffetz has been something of a rock star. He still won his nomination today on the first ballot, but applause for him was less energetic than before. Maybe that's because the delegates were older and less inclined to applaud. But there also seems to be a growing sense that he's in the wrong sector of the workhorse/show horse spectrum -- if that's not just my own misinterpretation of the data, based on my own thinking in the matter.

Later in the day, it became clear that there is a new rock star to take his place: 4th District Congressional nominee Mia Love. (She'll really be a star with Republicans if she beats Jim Matheson in November.) When it was time for the last round of one-minute speeches, before the last ballot in her race, Mark Shurtleff took most of Carl Wimmer's time, and ended by urging delegates to vote for a proven, experienced legislator instead of "a novelty." The delegates were not amused. I may have heard a little booing then, but mostly we applauded her even more vigorously when she spoke after that. Looking at the numbers from the last two ballots, I think Shurtleff may have cost Wimmer a primary. If the insult gets any traction, it may hurt John Swallow, too. I envisioned Swallow texting Shurtleff just after that, pleading, "Don't mention my name at all today, and for at least a week."

Drama and Punishment

Second Congressional District delegates and candidates were in a different hall at the convention center for their first round of speeches and voting in that race, while the main hall worked through the other three congressional districts. So a lot of us didn't know where the fireworks came from, when they erupted in the speeches prior to the second ballot (after they returned to the main hall). This made Second District delegates the most popular people in the hall after the convention, because the rest of us wanted the scoop. It also led to a delegate offering a much-appreciated (but ultimately out of order) motion from the floor, asking for an explanation. He called it a "What the Hell?" motion, to the general delight of the convention.

As far as I have been able to reconstruct what happened, the last Second District candidate to speak in the first round spilled the beans on several candidates who had made some sort of back-room deal to take down the favorite. The plan seems to have included the release of some supposed dirt on the favorite a day or two before the convention, when there would be no time for him to respond. When this came out, several delegates withdrew from the second round. One had his microphone shut off briefly for misconduct as he began to expand on the theme that another candidate was something on the order of a "bald-faced liar." And the other three districts' delegates were consumed with curiosity, not to mention, ahem, awakened.

In the end, I think the delegates punished the offenders by shifting enough votes to the favorite, Chris Stewart, that he avoided a primary.

There may be a pattern here. Delegates apparently punished Shurtleff's candidate for Shurtleff's slur against Mia Love. They may have administered a similar punishment in this case. And one of the implicated candidates here was one of the third parties who probably cost Tim Bridgewater a primary victory against Mike Lee in 2010, with a vicious robocall the day before the election, endorsing Bridgewater. Add this to what I gather -- from listening to numerous delegates -- was a serious backlash in favor of Orrin Hatch, because of FreedomWorks' scurrilous attacks, which were mostly based on lies about and distortions of his record . . .

I'm beginning to think voters and delegates are growing more sensitive to slimy (or even unfair) tactics and more willing to punish them at the polls. These attacks have had a devastating backlash, and -- if the attacks must exist -- I think a good backlash is wonderful.

Oddities and Minutia

I'm still mulling the passionate declaration of one candidate, who insisted, "We need to do what needs to be done." If I recall my academic years correctly, this masterpiece of circular logic is called a tautology. But I mostly call it a waste of words and an unfortunate substitute for substance. When you have one minute, or even six minutes, to make your case, you can't afford to waste words. On a similar note, I observed that in most cases candidates whose speeches just articulated conservative principles did very poorly. Candidates who translated those principles into specific policies did far better; delegates favored candidates with a clear sense of what they're going to do and how. This is a good thing.

I loved the "What the hell?" motion I mentioned above, even if it was out of order. For what it's worth, the closest we heard to cursing from the mouth of an actual candidate was "heck." Only in Utah.

Just before the vote for one seat on the Republican National Committee, a delegate asked the chair if one of the candidates was the same person by that name who had recently sued the state party, when she didn't get her way on a particular point. The chair conferred with other officers for a minute before declining to answer and ruling the question a breach of decorum. By then, I think, a lot of the new delegates had already picked up from experienced delegates that this individual has even more of a history against the party than that. In the voting, the delegates did not look favorably on a candidate with a history of not playing well with others.

This comment by a delegate from the floor led to another delegate's later motion, that there be more instruction for all delegates on the rules of decorum -- not a bad idea, though there was some instruction already, and generally good decorum. But she also proposed that there be some sort of sergeant-at-arms at future conventions to stop people before they breach decorum. (Because you can't unring a bell -- my metaphor.)

Is it just me, or did she move that the Party provide a sergeant-at-arms with psychic powers?

There was a motion from the floor to move the 2013 convention to St. George or thereabouts, which inspired some enthusiasm among the delegates. The chair promised to explore the possibility, but was uncertain if St. George has the facilities. My thinking is, if we're going to St. George, let's do it in February or March, when it's cold further north, and have maybe a three-day convention instead of one, meeting just a couple of hours each day, if even that . . .

A state delegate serves for two years and two conventions: one nominating convention, like today's, and one organizing convention the following year, to elect party officers and to handle resolutions, bylaws, and such. I realize that chairing conventions is just one of the state party chair's duties, but after today, I think Thomas Wright has my vote, if he runs again next year.

Parting Thought

Finally, there are some flaws in the delegate/convention system of nominating candidates, but it also has some strengths. In nearly every race I've seen in county and state conventions, the delegates have granted fringe candidates an early exit. Delegates are still well to the right of Utah Republicans generally -- less so this year -- but their tolerance for wing nuts and dabblers is quite low. And many, probably most, delegates work very hard to learn about the candidates. I spent about 50 hours in my delegate role before the convention. If the average is only half that (which I doubt, but I'm being conservative, tee hee), then the state delegates combined spent about 100,000 hours finding and promoting the best candidates. Add that to the convention, about 50,000 hours, and these people who were elected in their neighborhoods to choose the party's candidates spent 150,000 hours working on it. Even after all that, where there were multiple strong candidates in a particular race, in most cases the voters still get to choose between the top two in a primary election.

I expect I'll be reporting on next year's organizing convention here at the blog, at least for the sake of those who elected me. I wonder, should I have mentioned before the caucus vote that I have a history of going to these organizing conventions and voting for Satan? I thought about it, but there just wasn't time to do it justice in a one-minute speech.

David Rodeback comments (4/22/2012):

I made about half a dozen tweaks in this post, correcting typos, clarifying a murky construction or two, and changing "filthy liar" to "bald-faced liar" for the sake of accuracy. No real substantive changes, though.

April 20, 2012

One State Republican Delegate's Preconvention Report

My last post was long enough to reach the ground -- an old writing teacher's standard of length. But the ground was a long, long way down, even if the post was still a bit shorter than FreedomWorks' 44-page anti-Hatch document. This post is relatively brief, a summary of my thoughts and intentions on the eve of tomorrow's state Republican convention.

Tomorrow's the Utah State Republican Convention in Sandy, Utah. I'll be there early, and if a handful of delegates' paranoia bears fruit, I'll be lucky to be home before Monday, because we'll have had to use paper ballots for everything. I'm hoping to use the electronic system they've prepared and get home in time for dinner on Saturday.

If all goes well in a technical sense, I'll tweet some updates during the convention, as before. You can check the Twitter feed at the main blog page here, or follow me (@LocalCommentary) on Twitter, if you want my idiosyncratic take on the convention.

General Thoughts

I've received hundreds of e-mails and flyers from candidates and interested third parties. I've answered dozens and dozens of phone calls. If there was a person on the other end, we talked. If there was a machine, I nearly always terminated the call without listening. Life is too short, and robocalls are too cheap and easy, when purchased by candidates in bulk. I've chatted with numerous delegates by e-mail or on Facebook. I've argued with a few.

With the exception of a few delegates who are convinced that my views make me evil, stupid, or treasonous, I've enjoyed meeting and talking with other delegates at various events and in some chance meetings elsewhere. I've been interested to hear their views, and I've tried to share my own without being too dogmatic. Differences of opinion, managed with civility by mature adults, are a very healthy thing in our politics. I'll jot down some musings later on the convention system itself, but for now I'll just observe that nearly all the delegates I have encountered have been serious, conscientious, and gracious even with candidates they don't like. I've heard lots of delegates ask lots of questions of candidates, and they've nearly all been smart, respectful, meaningful questions.

I've attended a variety of debates and other candidate events in person, across two counties, and I've tuned into some others virtually. In a few cases, I've eaten a candidate's food -- a donut and some juice here, some pizza there -- and I have to say, two thumbs way up on Famous Dave's for barbecue. But I wasn't in it for the food (which I sometimes bought myself). I was in it to learn about candidates more deeply than one can by listening to sound bites and one-minute debate responses.

I hope the precincts who elected the fine delegates I've met appreciate the time and effort they've invested in doing their job well. I've been impressed and proud.

Now, some thoughts on the races in which I get to vote tomorrow.

US Senate

Senator Hatch is my first choice. Dan Liljenquist is my second choice -- but I'm unlikely to see a ballot that doesn't have both of these two on it. The two likely outcomes are Hatch avoiding a primary by getting 60% of the delegate vote, or a primary between Hatch and Liljenquist. I've spent a long time listening to both of these candidates. Both do a lot better when they can explore and explain, instead of trying to fit serious thoughts into sound bites. Liljenquist's acumen in the areas of taxation and finance is impressive, but, for many reasons I've articulated here at the blog, I'm not willing to trade a top-tier conservative US Senator for a top-tier state legislator.

I spent about an hour and a half listening to Liljenquist at one event. I came away more impressed than I had been by his performance in two debates I attended, which wasn't bad in either case. I understand why some who reject Hatch are quite enthusiastic about Liljenquist, and I can see myself supporting him enthusiastically in some future race.

I spent two hours listening to and talking with Orrin Hatch. I came away convinced that he's still the sharp, decent conservative I knew when I worked at the Senate 25 years ago. My open support for him has led some to accuse me of various evils, ranging from ignorance to grave sin or even treason, but I can take it. When I find a good, wise, honest man in -- or running for -- public office, I can endure some slings and arrows as the price for supporting him.

Most of the other candidates are minor or fringe candidates and will (deservedly) be eliminated in the initial ballots. Chris Herrod is the best of the rest by far -- I fear that's not saying much, and it's less praise than he deserves -- but he will likely finish a distant third.

Governor

Governor Herbert's major challengers are decent conservatives, articulate, and skilled at pushing all the right conservative buttons. His minor challengers are probably better, on the average, than Orrin Hatch's minor challengers. But I'm not just looking for a reliable conservative. I'm looking for a capable executive for an entire state government. I'm also looking -- if you'll pardon my heresy -- for someone I think can serve well as the governor of all the people of Utah, not just the conservative Republican base. None of the challengers has impressed me in the last two respects, even if I was a strong supporter of Morgan Philpot for Congress two years ago.

I've talked to people who've worked with the governor's office and other parts of his administration, including some in my own precinct, who speak quite favorably of the experience. I was particularly delighted that he vetoed that absurd sex education bill a few weeks ago, which would have prohibited public schools from teaching about contraception. This shows a laudable inclination to stand up to the overzealous right wing of his own party.

I think that Common Core, the federal curriculum standard so hated by some, is just a symptom, not the disease. Federal control of our schools is a fact, much to be deplored, but the Common Core and federal control generally will not be defeated by voting against Governor Herbert. Besides, we have bigger problems in education. Funding Utah schools in the face of daunting demographics is a larger challenge, as is the fact that the system stubbornly and powerfully resists real change and accountability. Solve these problems, and Common Core will take care of itself -- if it hasn't already been rightly judged to be illegal by then under three existing federal statutes.

I was amused the other day to hear Herbert's challengers talk about several things they think the state needs to start doing, and then to hear Herbert describe how the state is already doing those things. Incumbents tend to have a great advantage in knowledge of many day-to-day details, but I've seen some candidates overcome this by very hard work. None of Herbert's challengers appears to have done so.

I'll be voting for Governor Herbert.

US House of Representatives, Third District

Congressman Chaffetz is a rock star, but I think he's more of a show horse than a workhorse. I'm not convinced that any of his challengers is better. If I am so convinced by tomorrow, I'll vote for someone else. But my vote won't change anything. Chaffetz will win. At least he's a fairly reliable conservative vote.

Utah Attorney General

We're hiring a managing attorney for the state of Utah -- at least that's what I prefer to a lobbyist and political climber, in the office of Attorney General. I'm looking for legal skills and experience, some convincing experience managing a large legal team, and good character, to the extent that I have the necessary information to pass judgment on character.

I've talked to a variety of people who know at least one of the candidates and who are somewhat familiar with the Attorney General's office. I've considered my past experience with and impressions of John Swallow. And I spent an hour and a half with Sean Reyes this week. I was much more impressed with Reyes than I expected to be. He cleared my rather low bar -- a decent alternative to John Swallow -- by about six feet.

I don't have a sense of how this race will go, but I do have an excellent candidate in Reyes.

Utah State Auditor

I'll be voting for John Dougall. I know him, like him, and trust him. It's less a policy thing than a personal thing, but I don't apologize for that.

National Delegates, Presidential Electors, Etc.

There are a few dozen more offices to fill. I won't belabor them, except for two notes.

The identity and thinking of delegates to the Republican National Convention matters mostly in the sense that they're free to vote as they wish after the first ballot, if that ballot does not produce a nominee. That's unlikely to happen, but I will vote for delegates who say they support Mitt Romney.

National committee members have more influence on the national party platform, I believe, so I'll do my best to avoid hard right wingers. Why . . . is a longer discussion.

Denouement (loosely defined)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to figure out how soon to arrive at the convention in the morning. There are several variables.

Thanks for reading, and good night.

April 19, 2012

Why I Support Senator Orrin Hatch (Part Four)

In this fourth and -- at least for now -- final installment, I list and discuss criticisms of Senator Hatch's record which are true, in contrast to the lies and deceptions I discussed last time.

(Here are Part One , Part Two , and Part Three of this series.)

To their credit, Senator Orrin Hatch's major opponents for the Republican nomination for US Senate are better than FreedomWorks at sticking to truth and avoiding lies and deception, where Hatch's voting record is concerned. But even FreedomWorks gets a few things right along the way. Today I discuss some of the true criticisms -- and how much they do or do not trouble me as a conservative.

Let's start with the most obvious one: tenure.

Six Terms, Possibly Going on Seven

By the end of the current term, Senator Hatch will have been in office for 36 years. Another full term will bring that total to 42 years. That's a long time. Hatch's opponents think that's too long and, as challengers tend to do, even wishfully speak of term limits. They gleefully point out that, in his first campaign, Hatch said that 18 years of his incumbent opponent was enough.

In many cases 18 or 36 or 42 years would be too long. In some cases, 36 or 42 days would be too long. There's some concern that, the longer a senator or member of congress serves in Washington, the more fully he is coopted by the system to serve the interests of the Beltway crowd more than his district, state, or nation. It's a reasonable concern, but too simplistic. Many are coopted long before they arrive for their first term. And some manage to resist the leftward pressure inside the Beltway for decades. I've been watching Orrin Hatch work for about a quarter-century, sometimes at close range. I think he's still conservative; I don't think he's been coopted. And based on his body of work to date, I want to see what he can do with one more term, with -- one hopes -- a Republican president, Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, a major committee chairmanship, and possibly some serious pressure towards imposing sanity on federal spending (among other things). So I can vote for him eagerly, even if others who disagree cannot.

I'm not a big fan of term limits for the House or Senate; I prefer to trust the voters. Some self-identified "strict constructionists" and "constitutionalists" like to argue that the Founders never intended for elected officials to be career politicians. However, there was a wide diversity of views among the Founders -- including the subset who attended the 1787 Constitutional Convention -- so it means little, where original intent is concerned, that some of them might have thought one way or another. The United States Constitution is the product of a host of major compromises among people who thought differently on many points. The text itself is the best authority on their collective intent. As ratified, the Constitution said nothing of term limits, until it was amended in the 20th century to limit presidential terms. So there is no constitutional argument to be made in favor of term limits, even if there is a philosophical or historical one.

Hatch's opponents have been lavish and grandiose in thanking him for his 36 years of service, just before they explain why he should be forced to retire. The other day, I had a chance to chat with him briefly, after listening to him answer state delegates' questions for two hours. Among other things, I told him something I had been wanting to say for a while.

I thanked him for running one more time.

Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP)

One of the Tea Party's key grievances with . . . well, almost every incumbent . . . is TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, sometimes called the bank bailout. Near the end of President Bush's second term, the country's banking system was imploding, as insane federal mortgage policy chickens came home to roost. There was serious threat of further collapse, and there were some serious possible international consequences, too. The only legislative response on the table was TARP, an effort to prop up some major pieces of the structure. Orrin Hatch and many other conservatives voted for the bill. For some voters, this was an unpardonable sin; some have told me they would have welcomed further financial collapse. I'm not a big fan of TARP as originally passed, but I concede the possibility that it prevented further collapse. I also admit the possibility that its defeat would have communicated to the financial and political world (and I mean world) that the United States was unwilling or unable to address its own crisis, a perception which could have had serious repercussions worldwide. Even Glenn Beck supported it at the time, but I don't know whether anyone of his fans in Utah remember that.

FreedomWorks and some of its surrogates have claimed that Hatch voted to reauthorize TARP later under President Obama, when it had become clear that funds were being misused. As I noted yesterday, this is false. Hatch voted against reauthorization.

State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)

Hatch's opponents cite his sponsorship of SCHIP as an irresponsible federal power grab in the area of health care. I see it as an excellent example of the need to stop and listen for a few minutes before passing such judgments, and of the need to legislate in the real world, not an ideological fantasy world. I was at a meeting with Senator Hatch the other day, when a fellow delegate asked him about SCHIP. He explained that many low-income working families were unable to afford health insurance, so, for the sake of their children, they would quit working, so as to qualify for Medicaid. Like it or not, Medicaid exists, and it and unemployment are both far more expensive than SCHIP.

SCHIP made money available to states to subsidize health insurance for children in such families, so the parents could say in the productive economy and not recede into the parasitic sector of the welfare state -- saving taxpayers a lot of money. Given that he couldn't repeal Medicaid single-handedly and replace it with a system friendlier to conservative principles (or no federal system at all), but had to work within existing structures, I think SCHIP as originally passed was a prudent exercise of common sense and conservative principles.

Later, under Obama and the Democrats, SCHIP became just another welfare program. In one of many Orwellian moments in recent years, they even added childless parents to the program. Senator Hatch voted against reauthorizing it. (Staying in character, FreedomWorks gets this one wrong; they say he voted to reauthorize.) Maybe we should blame the senator for creating a monster in an effort to restrain a bigger monster. But SCHIP didn't begin as a monster; it became a monster later, in more profligate, Democratic hands.

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA)

More than a few of my fellow conservatives are livid over one section of NDAA, an expansive bill which authorizes defense spending for fiscal year 2012. It's not that they're opposed to the Defense Department generally -- at least most of them aren't. They just think that the section in question abolishes two or three amendments in the Bill of Rights. I've read that part of the bill -- and I've studied the Bill of Rights for years -- and I just don't see what they see. For daring to mention my disagreement, I have been called, as recently as this week, blind, foolish, ignorant, stupid, liberal, unpatriotic, and un-American. Such is the price of dissenting from far-right orthodoxy in Utah in 2012. But they save their strongest language for Senator Hatch and others who voted for the bill: these they call traitors, guilty of treason.

The section attracting all this heat permits the detention of enemy combatants for the duration of a war, according to the laws of war, without criminal charges or civil trial. Asked about this at a recent meeting I attended, Senator Hatch explained that this section of NDAA makes no new law, but summarizes ("codifies," he said) laws already on the books elsewhere. He might have explained, but didn't, that the furor over this part of NDAA is really displaced from the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). There is a long-standing debate over the scope of that act, especially over the bounds of its definitions of "enemy combatants" and "belligerents." The problem, if there is one, is in AUMF, not NDAA.

One observer has written that NDAA "allows people who think the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks gives the president the authority to detain US citizens without charge or trial to say that [NDAA does the same thing], but it also allows people who can read the Constitution of the United States to argue something else."

There are several bills pending on Capitol Hill to clarify this question. Some clarification would be welcome. Meanwhile, the ACLU and some strange bedfellows on the right will continue to abuse those of us who disagree, and I will continue to support Orrin Hatch's reelection.

Multiple Votes to Raise the Debt Limit Ceiling

Senator Hatch's opponents are quick to note that in his 35 years of service he's voted to raise the federal debt ceiling more than a dozen times. (Opponents say 16 times; the Hatch campaign says 15 times -- not that it matters.) They don't always mention that he's also voted against raising it 16 times -- under Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton, both Bushes, and Obama. Most of the debt ceiling increases he favored were requested by President Reagan, and most or all of those were in the context of needing to rebuild our military forces quickly and without massive tax increases to cripple a recovering economy -- after the military was decimated under the Carter administration. One of the increases he favored for was under President Obama in 2011; a December 2011 article by Dick Armey himself, posted at FreedomWorks' own web site, said that increase was necessary "in order to avoid a national fiscal calamity." In several of his votes to increase the debt ceiling, Hatch was joined by Barry Goldwater, Phil Gram, Newt Gingrich, John Kasich, and, yes, Dick Armey himself -- along with most or all other Republicans then in office.

One of the debt limit increases he favored was included in the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, the key legislation to issue from the 1994 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. Another was in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which contained the first balanced federal budget in decades.

So, not all debt ceiling increases are created equal, and there's also plenty of hypocrisy among Hatch's leading critics on this subject. But I think there's a deeper issue. Congress spends money in a two-step process, authorization and appropriation. Authorization sets forth what funds can and will be used for; appropriation actually provides the funds, in separate legislation. It's fairly common for expenditures to be authorized but then to fail to receive any appropriated funds. This two-step process is where debts and deficits are born, and it's where they need to be corrected. While it's clear to me and many others than chronic deficit spending is grossly irresponsible, there's also an argument to be made that never increasing the debt ceiling is the wrong place to attack the problem, that in some cases it would be akin to refusing to pay our obligations -- which could have catastrophic long-term fiscal effects. There's also a political argument to be made that the resultant government shutdown would, as before, push the White House and Congress even further to the left in coming election -- also with catastrophic long-term fiscal effects.

I applaud the use of proposed debt ceiling increases to attempt to achieve spending cuts and even a balanced budget amendment -- but (at least generally) as a condition of those increases, not through denying the increases. I'm well aware that these arguments do not persuade those who believe that all government debt is irresponsible, who prefer a catastrophic environment in which to attempt to enact reforms, or who blame Senator Hatch for everything that has happened in Washington, DC, in the last 35 years. I find myself in none of those camps.

Medicare Part D (Prescription Drugs)

I'm not a big fan of Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit. Senator Hatch explains that it's a relatively rare government program that costs less than original estimates, and that it is to some degree a private-sector solution to some problems in an area where the federal government is already heavily invested in its own, government-centric solutions. In the latter sense, I suppose it could have been a model for much saner health care reform than we got in ObamaCare.

The bottom line is, I don't see Part D as a reason to vote for Senator Hatch, but I don't find it sufficient cause to vote against him, either.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

I'm an elitist, I suppose. I read "No Child Left Behind" with an unstated subtitle: No Child Gets Ahead, Either. I'm not a fan of one-size-fits-all edicts from the federal education bureaucracy (or the state, for that matter), which you may safely take to mean that I'm not a fan of the federal education bureaucracy itself.

However, for those who can think outside the ideological box, there are two political considerations which might mitigate Hatch's and other conservatives' offense in promoting and voting for No Child Left Behind. First, for all its flaws, it was a step towards accountability in the classroom -- and this in an environment in which very powerful forces resist even the slightest nod toward accountability. Second, it was President George W. Bush's first major legislative initiative. There was real concern among conservative Republicans that, if it failed because of Republican nays, the Bush presidency would have been severely crippled from the outset -- which would have pushed things further left, not right.

Appointments

Hatch's opponents routinely dismiss my arguments about his profound and positive conservative influence on the federal judiciary by listing some people they despise, whom Orrin Hatch has voted to confirm, including some liberal Supreme Court justices nominated by Democrat presidents. I think it's important to remember that Hatch has been concerned to defend not only the conservative nominees of Republican presidents, but also the confirmation process itself, against efforts by the left to destroy both the nominees and the process. Right or wrong, if you expect Orrin Hatch to preside over the borking of a Democrat president's liberal Supreme Court nominee, you'll be disappointed. He thinks it's bad for the process and therefore the country in the long term -- and if you watched closely the inquisitions of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, or some of the things the left tried to do more recently with Samuel Alito and conservative nominees, you might appreciate Hatch for what he is unwilling, for the sake of sound governance, to do in the service of ideology.

The Senate doesn't get to choose the president's nominees. Most of Hatch's other confirmation votes which some Utah conservatives find offensive were votes for nominees he believed were the best (in conservative terms) we were likely to see from Democrat presidents -- even if they weren't very good. In none of these cases was Hatch's the deciding vote. Being willing to work with reasonably qualified nominees with whom he disagrees tends to preserve a measure of influence, which he can use in some cases to encourage a Democrat White House to lean a little less to the left in some nominations, or to persuade a Republican president to nominate a solid conservative. It also preserves some political capital for use in select cases where he might be able to push back effectively against a particularly bad nominee.

Just this week there's a report out that Hatch answered diplomatically, not venomously, when asked about the possible nomination of Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court. The rabid right-wingers heard this and, in their unfortunate inability to distinguish diplomacy and good manners from active endorsement, are now persuaded that Hatch actually wants her on the Court. It's a ludicrous and irresponsible interpretation of Hatch's words. But back to reality . . .

You can't have this appointments conversation with a Hatch opponent without hearing the name of Cass Sunstein, President Obama's Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Ask Orrin Hatch about him, and why he voted for his confirmation, and he'll say -- because I've heard him say, from a range of about three feet -- the following. Cass Sunstein is a crazy, leftist law professor in general, but he's a genuine expert in regulation, having literally written the book on the subject. And he was the least offensive of the likely Obama nominees for that position.

Sometimes in real life, grown-ups, including conservative senators, have to put up with nutty people who are very good at what they do. Sometimes in real life, you take the best you can get, even if he, she, or it isn't very good in some ways, and move on to the next thing. Some right-wing ideologues would doubtless be happier if Hatch had thrown a childish, political tantrum all over the airwaves and the Capitol steps. But he would have forfeited by doing so both the respect of many colleagues in both parties (and a lot of Utah grown-ups who vote), and also any future influence he might have had in the matter of nominations and confirmations.

To a lot of Utah ideologues, intelligent politics is practically treason. To me, it's . . . intelligent politics.

Final, Personal Thought

Occasionally, in the weeks leading up to Saturday's state convention, I've asked delegates who despise Hatch why they don't stick to the real issues in an honest, intelligent reading of his record -- such as the ones I've listed here. There are enough of these to justify voting against Hatch, if that's what they want to do.

I've told you why -- usually in political context -- these matters don't trouble me enough to diminish my support for Orrin Hatch. But if these things (except the Hillary bit, which is absurd) bother you that much, they're great reasons to vote and to campaign against him. You really don't need anything more.

. . . So why do they feel compelled to pile on the lies and distortions I sampled yesterday? Wouldn't they have a stronger case and more credibility if they were scrupulous about his record? Wouldn't a more conscientious effort at embracing truth be good for the debate and, in the long run, for government? Why is it so unthinkable that someone could think differently without being uninformed, lazy, stupid, or outright evil? This level of intolerance is unworthy of free people and cannot possibly tend to good government.

Some delegates really do stick to the real issues in Hatch's record. I applaud them. Hatch's serious challengers are doing a fairly good job of it, for which I applaud them, too. But some of the delegates and others I ask about this just keep fuming, and throw back at me the same overheated list of offenses, two-thirds of which are demonstrably false.

And not even that's enough. They tell me that if I'd just stop and think, or study the issues and the record and read the Constitution -- wish I'd thought of that! -- and get out of my mind-numbed lockstep with Utah's senior senator, I'd inevitably agree with them. Or they urge me to repent, because I'm clearly on a highway to the infernal realms, because I support Orrin Hatch.

I've spent decades watching Orrin Hatch work. I've listened to him for hours and hours and hours, in person and otherwise. It's fine with me, if you don't like his politics. But I find him to be a gentleman; a genuine, articulate, intelligent conservative; and uncommonly honest, hard-working, and decent, despite being a shrewd politician. I'm honored to be able to vote for him on Saturday, as a state delegate. And I really did -- and do -- thank him for running again.

April 18, 2012

Why I Support Senator Orrin Hatch (Part Three)

An out-of-state group called FreedomWorks has led the effort to defeat Senator Orrin Hatch. Much of what they say about Hatch's voting record is false or deceptive. I assume FreedomWorks understands this, though I doubt the same could generally be said of the Utahans they've rallied to their cause.

(Here are Part One and Part Two of this series.)

Mining the Opponent's Record

I've managed or staffed political campaigns in New York, Idaho, and Utah. In cases where there's a good record kept of an incumbent's votes, such as congressional or state legislative campaigns, studying the opponent's voting record is an important and often fruitful activity. The earlier in the campaign you do it, the better.

How you do it matters. It tells us a lot about you (the campaign staffer), your candidate, and the campaign.

There are two basic approaches to an opponent's legislative record. It might help to see them as the two extremes of a single spectrum. A candidate's campaign may position itself anywhere in the spectrum, at either extreme or somewhere in between. For this discussion, I'll call one extreme conscientious and the other cynical. There is a value judgment in this choice of terms, but it's a value judgment I'm promoting.

Even for those of us who try to stay at the conscientious extreme, in the heat of a campaign there's a great temptation to slip toward the cynical. Conversely, sometimes people who are perfectly willing to set up shop at the cynical extreme don't have to, because the opponent gives them plenty to work with even if they remain conscientious.

Cynical and Conscientious

The cynical approach is to mine the opponent's voting record for anything that can be spun or distorted to cast the opponent in a negative light. If there isn't enough to spin, some campaigns will actually invent things. You can fool some of the people all of the time, at least long enough for the polls to close on Election Day. Most voters don't do much of their own research.

One may take the cynical approach deliberately, despite a solid understanding of issues and legislative processes. Or one may take it because of zeal or desperation, or a belief that the worthy end justifies the unworthy means. Likewise, voters on the receiving end may embrace the deception whole-heartedly, despite their understanding of it, if it serves their interests or prejudices. Or they may be too new to the political maelstrom (as seems to be the case with a significant fraction of the Tea Party) or too ignorant or lazy to penetrate the deception.

The conscientious approach is to try to represent each vote or statement accurately. This requires solid knowledge of issues and the legislative process, and some real work. It also requires accepting the uncomfortable idea that the opponent is not always completely wrong about everything.

Since the theme of this series of blog posts is my reasons for supporting Senator Orrin Hatch's reelection, I will illustrate my points with material from his opposition, specifically the very prolific, lavishly funded FreedomWorks and its surrogates. FreedomWorks is not a specific opponent's campaign, but in its opposition research the same spectrum of choices is available. (FreedomWorks is a third party interest group, led by people who cast some of the same votes they're criticizing. They're spending piles of money to defeat conservative Republicans who supposedly aren't conservative enough, and very little to defeat Democrats.)

Months ago, FreedomWorks sent me a 44-page full-color document called "The facts about Orrin Hatch's 36 year record." Despite the abundance of footnotes, many of their "facts" are false or deceptive. A few of their "facts" actually are true. Today I'll give some examples of lies and deception, products of campaigning at the cynical end of the spectrum. In the next post I'll treat some highlights among the items which are true.

For what it's worth, today's mail brought another copy of the same 44-page publication.

I've picked eight examples among dozens. The ones that are outright false I'll call lies. The ones that contain some truth, which doesn't mean what they say it means, I'll call deceptions. (I'm assuming they're all deliberate.) Most of my examples are also common talking points among fellow state delegates who oppose Senator Hatch.

Lies

Lie: Senator Hatch Voted to Create the Department of Education in 1979.

In the final roll call vote on the legislation which created the US Department of Education on 24 September 1979, Senator Hatch voted nay. This was the vote on the bill in its final form, which passed both houses and went to President Carter for his signature.

Let's suppose for a moment (rather fancifully, I think) that the FreedomWorks people aren't just lying because they think they can get away with it long enough affect the outcome. Here's what they might have seen and thought they could spin.

Substantive legislation rarely passes the House and Senate in identical forms. Often the differences are large and consequential. When the passed House and Senate bills differ, they are sent to a conference committee consisting of members of both houses, who are appointed by their leaders. This committee attempts to reconcile the two different bills into a single bill, which is usually some sort of compromise. If this committee succeeds, its work product is called the "conference report," but it is really the bill in its final form. This goes back to both houses for an up-or-down vote, without amendment. The vote I just cited, where Senator Hatch opposed the bill, was on the conference report of S. 210 -- the final vote. He voted aye when the Senate originally passed S.210 on 30 April 1979 -- but that was not the final vote.

I haven't asked Senator Hatch about his reasons for voting aye that April, and I haven't taken the time to investigate further, because it's the final vote that matters. Legitimate reasons for voting aye in April and nay in December might include the following.

Perhaps he favored the bill in its original form, as passed by the Senate, but not in its final form in the conference report, because of changes made in conference.
Perhaps he changed his mind about there being a Department of Education. (Note: This would be a conservative evolution.)
Perhaps he voted aye initially to position himself to influence the conference report in some way, to make the bill better in some way, to mitigate the damage it would do, or -- I doubt this happened in this case -- to position himself to sabotage the bill in conference.
Perhaps, after his vote in April, he was deluged with protests, to the point that he felt his political survival depended on voting nay in September. (Taking counsel from one's constituents is sometimes a good thing.)

I'm not attributing any of these to Hatch in this case, just noting that legitimate reasons exist -- and attempting to illustrate the need to understand both Senate rules and the actual facts, before leaping to conclusions.

Lie: Senator Hatch Voted to Bail Out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008.

This was the Foreclosure Prevention Action of 2008. Senator Hatch voted nay. I have no idea what FreedomWorks might have thought they saw here that might be incriminating. However, I will concede that decoding the "question" in this case could be challenging. Maybe they figured that if any of us wondered about it enough to look it up, our eyes would glaze over when we read, "On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to the House Amendments to the Senate Amendment to HR 3221)."

This title itself is not intentional obfuscation, by the way. Real life is complicated, and so is the legislative process. It usually makes more sense at the time, from the inside, than it seems to later, from the outside.

Lie: Senator Hatch Voted to Bail Out GM and Chrysler.

In fact, Hatch voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill (HR 7005) -- essentially voting against there ever being a final vote on it. Having failed at the Senate, the White House decided to use TARP funds that were already available. The vote cited in the FreedomWorks document was on an amendment to the bill that failed, which (need I say?) is not the same thing as a final vote on the bill.

Lie: Senator Hatch Voted for a Bad Energy Bill in 2007.

FreedomWorks cites Hatch's cloture vote as if it were the final vote. In this case, Hatch agreed to support cloture (allowing the bill to come to a vote) in return for some significant changes. When those changes weren't made, he voted against the bill in the final vote.

Lie: Senator Hatch Voted to Reauthorize TARP.

Senator Hatch and most other conservatives on Capitol Hill voted for the bank bailout (Troubled Asset Relief Program) originally. Even Glenn Beck supported it. But FreedomWorks also claims Hatch then voted to reauthorize TARP later, under President Obama.

In fact, Hatch voted present on a motion to prohibit reauthorization and on the resolution itself (SJRes 5), as part of the "live pair" tradition in the Senate. Senator Edward Kennedy was hospitalized and unable to be present to vote. He would have voted nay on the motion and aye on the resolution itself. So another Senator -- Hatch -- who would have voted opposite Kennedy, was chosen to withhold his vote. The thinking is that this tradition prevents hospitalization from determining legislation. In any case, Hatch's vote was not decisive; the motion failed and the resolution passed by several votes. Even if FreedomWorks were oblivious to this Senate tradition, the worst they could truthfully say is that Hatch didn't vote either way, not that he supported reauthorization.

Lie: Senator Hatch Supported a Government Takeover of the Health Care System.

FreedomWorks wants you to associate Senator Hatch with your anger (assuming that is what you feel) over ObamaCare. But Hatch voted against ObamaCare. This charge actually goes back to ObamaCare's failed predecessor, President Clinton's health care plan, sometimes called HillaryCare. Here's the official explanation from Hatch's campaign: "Senator Hatch co-sponsored several Republican alternatives so that Democrats wouldn't be able to claim the Republicans did not have a plan. The strategy worked, and HillaryCare was defeated. The Republican legislation with an individual mandate was promptly abandoned and never came up for debate or for a vote."

Deceptions

Deception: Even Before Obama's "Stimulus" in 2009, Senator Hatch Voted for a Stimulus Bill in 2008, Expanding the Welfare State.

That sounds terrible, doesn't it? Hatch did vote for the bill FreedomWorks cites. So did Paul Ryan. But this "stimulus" was mostly tax cuts, $134 billion in five years. It was not a gargantuan vehicle for pork, like Obama's stimulus. What a difference a year makes . . .

Deception: Hatch Voted Against Removing a $300 Billion Earmark in FHA Insurance.

This was a procedural vote on an amendment to a bill Hatch opposed in the final vote. The impression the accusation creates, that he voted for a $300 billion earmark, is therefore false.

Deception: In 2007 Hatch Voted for "Big Labor's Job-Killing Minimum Wage Hike."

If you know there are enough votes to pass a minimum wage hike -- which conservatives generally consider a bad thing, per basic economics -- you can simply vote nay and watch it pass anyway, or you can propose an alternative that mostly mitigates the damage of the minimum wage hike. In this case, Hatch voted to filibuster (that is, voted against cloture on) a bill which would simply have increased the minimum wage, and instead supported a substitute. This included the minimum wage increase but mitigated its negative impact through tax breaks for small businesses. For those who value good conservative governance over ideological purity, this makes sense.

Concluding Thought

I could go on, but these examples are enough to illustrate how the game is played -- and how FreedomWorks, in this case, is trying to perpetrate a fraud on Utah delegates and voters. You'd think that, after Hatch's 35 years in the Senate, his opponents could pick through his record and find plenty of real things not to like -- maybe even 44 pages' worth. For some reason, they still had to invent a lot of offenses -- all carefully crafted, of course, to incur the wrath of the Tea Party, or at least the less informed and less conscientious wing of that group.

As I noted in the beginning, there are some things in Senator Hatch's record for conservatives not to like, things which are actually true and require explanation. I'll discuss some of those next time.

March 13, 2012

Why I Support Senator Orrin Hatch (Part Two)

Four more reasons why I support Senator Orrin Hatch's reelection in 2012.

Last time, I began to explain why I support US Senator Orrin Hatch's reelection. I mentioned three reasons, one of which is less important than the others.

Reason 1: For as long as I have known him and watched him at the Senate -- about 25 years -- I have thought that he represented my conservative values very well. (This one reason might be enough for me.)

Reason 2: To a large extent we have Orrin Hatch to thank for a relatively conservative US Supreme Court. (If the first reason weren't enough for me, the first two together would be.) He has had a similar influence on lower courts.

Reason 3: He's an old friend of the family. (This might not be enough by itself, but I consider it a legitimate reason to vote for someone.)

Please take a few minutes to read this excellent John Yoo article from National Review Online. Yoo writes, "No senator has done more to promote conservative values in constitutional law than Hatch, and a failure to return him would only show that conservative activists are more interested in enforcing a false ideological purity than winning and governing."

Today, I'll add four more reasons why I support Senator Hatch.

Reason 4: He's more conservative than Bob Bennett.

Two years ago, as a state delegate, I helped defeat three-term incumbent US Senator Robert Bennett at convention. I had admired Senator Bennett in some respects for years, and I was quite content to vote for him in the 1998 and 2004 general elections, along with most of the rest of Utah. I found him intelligent, thoughtful, articulate, dignified, and almost conservative enough for my tastes. By 2010 I was unhappy with him on a couple of major points -- not the ones usually cited during the campaign -- but I was still not in anybody-but-Bennett mode. When I arrived on the convention floor, he was my third choice among eight or nine candidates. If my first and second choices had been eliminated on an early ballot, but not Bennett, I would have voted for him against any of the other candidates in a heartbeat, because I prefer an often-conservative senator who is up to the job to a radical right-winger who is not.

Orrin Hatch is not Bob Bennett. Hatch is a more consistent conservative. In some ways his record is more conservative even than that of Dick Armey, the former congressman who now chairs FreedomWorks, which is committing millions of dollars to Hatch's defeat. I acknowledge he's not conservative enough to satisfy the far right wing of his constituents, which seems to value ideological purity more than actually winning the legislative battles which can be won and influencing some that can't. But by any reasonable definition, he is one of the most conservative US Senators to serve in my adult lifetime.

Reason 5: There is no Mike Lee in the field this year, no one for whom I'm willing to trade a conservative, very influential senior senator.

In 2010 my first choice was Mike Lee. I became acquainted with him in 2009 and was very impressed, particularly with his approach to the Constitution, in combination with his knowledge of how the US government works. I wrote at the time that I hoped he would run for office, perhaps against my congressman, Democrat Jim Matheson. Eventually, he convinced me that he would be better suited to the Senate, where he now serves, and where I am generally quite satisfied with his work.

I've been studying Senator Hatch's Republican opponents this year, and I attended a debate the other evening. One debate isn't enough basis for final judgment, but it's a good start.

Senator Hatch wasn't there, but his challengers were. His defeat is a real possibility, so I attended hoping to discover that there is an excellent alternative or two -- another Mike Lee, perhaps. I came away thinking the field is weak. Dan Liljenquist was the most promising and bears further attention, but I was less impressed than I expected to be, after weeks and months of his supporters' exultations.

Had the field of challengers been this weak in 2010, I would have voted for Senator Bennett -- almost happily, despite my discontents.

Reason 6: Without Orrin Hatch we'll have two rookie US senators. Experience and seniority are too important in the Senate for that to be a good thing.

Apart from Mike Lee's own merits, one reason I was willing to trade Senator Bennett for him in 2010 was that Utah would still have a senior senator in Orrin Hatch (whom I like better than Bennett, anyway). Seniority and experience are more significant in the US Senate than many voters realize.

When things come to a vote on the Senate floor, all votes are created equal; this is widely understood. There is no such equality in the matters of influencing or deciding which bills advance and when, and what they contain. A Senate committee chair is quite powerful, and the chair of the Senate Finance Committee is more so than most.

Hatch has been part of a Republican majority from time to time over the years, but never yet part of a fiscal conservative majority. Whether there will be a fiscal majority after the coming election, I do not know. But as chair of the Senate Finance Committee (if the Republicans retake the Senate), he will be the most powerful person on Capitol Hill, or nearly so, where the federal budget and its deficits, the national debt, entitlement reform, the repeal of ObamaCare, the promotion of a sensible balanced budget amendment, and other essential matters are concerned.

I know Senator Bennett made a similar argument two years ago, based on seniority and prospective committee roles. It was a valid argument, which I considered before voting for someone else. Please forgive me for repeating: Senator Hatch is more conservative than former Senator Bennett, and there is no Mike Lee in this year's race.

Reason 7: We have some very difficult decisions to make in coming years, related to entitlement programs which affect senior citizens disproportionately.

On one hand, we can no longer afford all our past promises. On the other hand, wisely or otherwise, but to some degree by necessity, people have planned their lives according to those promises, and for many, especially senior citizens, it's too late to change those plans. As we face these issues, I think it might be good to have one Utah senator who is a senior citizen, instead of having two who are even further from that status than I am.

There are more reasons where these came from. Stay tuned.