(Part One of Three)
This all began sometime in the last ten days … or maybe two weeks. I have a dear friend of about 20 years who once lived near me, but now lives in Utah. We have reconnected on Facebook and mostly we enjoy talking about our children and our lives. But there’s this place that we struggle with because we really do love each other and it’s gotten a little bit messy. She has become an avid campaigner for two Tea Party candidates. I spend a lot of time ignoring the places that we disagree on, and enjoying her passion. And she spends a lot of time loving me back. So far it’s all worked out really well. But I’ve always been very curious, because I hold my friend in pretty high regard. She’s smart and funny and educated. What is it that has drawn her to these candidates and caused her to be so passionate about them? Indeed, why have so many people been drawn to these candidates? I know popular wisdom holds that many Tea Partiers are ignorant and stupid; easily lead. But for the most part that has not been my individual experience with people who are likely to vote for their candidates in a little over a week. So, I decided to do away with all the yelling and name-calling and do a little research project of my own.
I’d been thinking about this research project for a while. Then several events came together in my life which prompted me to get off the block and do it. First, my aforementioned friend posted a bunch of stuff about her candidates and I got more curious. Then someone else posted a link to a Rachel Maddow video about why the Tea Party candidates are doing so well this year. Her analysis was intriguing, but I don’t necessarily agree with Rachel and wanted to see for myself. Finally, the DSCC (Democratic Senate Campaign Committee) posted an ad on my Facebook page and asked me to tell them which Tea Party candidate I think is the most extreme. So I went to that page and found a great list of Tea Party candidates which I had never had in one place before. (P.S. I have not answered the DSCC question because I think it’s ridiculous and a bunch of hype). It would be great if the Democrats would get together and tell us what they stand FOR, because it is good and right. They are not slightly liberal Republicans, but Democrats and that is a good thing. But I digress 😉
So I used that list as a starting point to find Tea Party candidates for Senate office (mostly) and a couple who are running for House of Representatives. I went to their campaign websites and read their biographies and then their issues page(s). What I found there was sometimes surprising and sometimes not. I ended up looking at 10 candidates overall. There were a couple that I did some additional research into for no reason other than they were intriguing to me, or the race they were running was intriguing. I did not look at any of their opponents. I suppose I could have, but I didn’t. The reason is this … there are those within the Tea Party who claim that it is something new and different; that these candidates are going to change the way things are done for the better. So I wanted to see if the candidates running under their banner have what it takes to live up to that.
I looked at 8 candidates for US Senate and 3 candidates for US House of Representatives. They were as follows (listed alphabetically by last name):
US Senate Candidates
Sharron Angle – Nevada
Ken Buck – Colorado
Ron Johnson – Wisconsin
Mike Lee – Utah
Joe Miller – Alaska
Christine O’Donnell – Delaware
Rand Paul – Kentucky
Marco Rubio – Florida
US House of Representatives
Keith Fimian – Virginia 11th District
Tim Griffin – Arkansas 2nd District
Morgan Philpot – Utah 2nd District
What I found was that overall, Tea Party candidates will more than likely change very little if they are elected to office this fall. Yes, they are dissatisfied. Yes, they are angry. Yes, they have a vituperative critique of the way the Federal Government (and especially Congress) is run. But their critique is mostly about which toys are being played with, not the game overall. With one exception, the candidates I looked at do not want to actually change the game, they just want to change the playing pieces. While they are long on flash, they seem to be short on pan, making their particular flash in the pan even less impressive than most. But I also found that they had a lot more in common than I anticipated. So please allow me to tell what I found out about the common concerns and commonalities of this group of Tea Party candidates.
The first thing I began to notice when I looked them up was the inordinate number of sponsored links that arose linking this group of candidates with the Club For Growth. I searched for websites by putting their names into Google. Approximately 7 or 8 times out of 11, the top sponsored link was one connecting the candidate to the Club For Growth. This group was started in 1999 and it ostensibly assists conservative candidates with their campaigns. As I discovered, 8 of the 11 candidates are CFG endorsed candidates. Apparently, one of the requirements for endorsement is pledging favor for privatization of Social Security accounts (more on that in part 2).
The second thing I noticed was that an inordinate number of them, approximately 7 or 8 are lawyers by education and profession. The exceptions were both women, Keith Fimian (an accountant) and Rand Paul (an opthamologist). None of the candidates were strangers to the electoral system and almost all had either won some form of political office before or run other campaigns before. They are not newcomers to our political process by any stretch of the imagination. And many have spent significant portions of their working lives in and around government offices; usually attorney generals offices of one sort or another.
Broadly speaking, the candidates had something to say about the following issues (listed in alphabetical order, because the candidates all listed them in different order):
Economy & Taxation
Of course, these are all conservative candidates so they believe in a very conservative paradigm for financial management. They all believe and pledged (to greater or lesser extents) to reduce the tax burden on all of us in order to get the economy working again. Several discussed the fault incumbent upon the current Congress for increasing the debt load; others discussed the current financial crisis as a problem that has been years in the making and were happy to spread the responsibility around to both the Bush and Obama administrations.
All of the candidates were opposed to raising taxes. In fact, they were lock step in the notion that the tax burden must be decreased, especially on the very wealthy. It should also be decreased on all of us. This is a noble cause in light of the current debt burden we are now carrying from two wars and a lengthening financial crisis.
Energy Issues
This was the issue upon which there was probably the least consensus. Overall, most of the candidates stated that our reliance upon foreign oil resources was problematic for our economy and for industrial objectives. All of them were supportive of reducing our reliance upon foreign oil resources, but after that the consensus broke down. There were many different ideas about how the country should go about doing this, but all focused on a common thread that the free market would be the best place to determine the outcome.
Family Values
All of the candidates made sure to define marriage on their issues page as a union between a man and a woman. Some took it no further than this. Others made certain that they clearly spelled out their opposition to same-sex marriage.
They were also certain to declare their opposition to abortion in any form, except for cases of incest, rape or danger to the mother. There were exceptions to this, of the 11, 4 had participated in the Republican National Coalition PAC’s Life Questionnaire and declared their opposition to abortion in the case of rape, incest or danger to the mother.
Every candidate very clearly announced their support for the 2nd amendment (unfettered gun ownership) without any further governmental interference. NRA membership and endorsements were proudly sported on many of their websites.
Federal Government (size and function)/Entitlements
Every one of the candidates expressed their dismay at the large (bloated) size of the Federal Government. They all (to a greater or lesser degree) supported and/or would initiate legislation to decrease the size of the Federal Government … on anything not related to defense or national security. Or education. Or law enforcement/prisons. The candidates also were in general agreement that entitlement spending must be decreased with the goal of eventually removing it from the budget (privatizing Social Security) and getting rid of the other entitlement programs all together.
Health Care Reform
Most, if not all, are staunchly opposed to the healthcare reforms passed by this Congress and signed into law by President Obama (referred to disparagingly as Obamacare). They express the most concern about the provision which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance (and if they cannot afford it, it will be provided for them). There is also concern expressed about the so-called abortion clause; that is the candidates are firmly opposed to the notion that any taxpayer dollars might be used in support of abortion.
Immigration Issues
Immigration issues tended to be a hot button for many of the candidates, with good reason given the current atmosphere in our country. They were all opposed to any form of amnesty at all for any current undocumented alien (often referred to illegal immigrant). They were all opposed to undocumented aliens receiving any entitlements or health care. Several were in favor of very strong measures to secure the southern border to include, opening military bases, building a wall, an increased military presence, some form of electronic citizenship verification, etc. Others hinted at rescinding one or more constitutional amendments concerning states rights and how our citizenship is determined in order to remove the incentive for people to come here.
National Defense/Terrorism
As one would anticipate all of the candidates made strong statements concerning our national defense. They are committed to finishing the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war with strength. They are committed to our troops and to our veterans. The candidates all made statements that veteran care must improve once our soldiers return home and are no longer serving. At least one or two remain firmly committed to Israel as our ally in the Middle East.
I have painted with an overly broad brush here to give you a quick read on the candidates who’s websites I visited. I’d really suggest that you go visit their websites to get a better notion of who they are yourselves. I have to admit that I found some of their solutions and ideas fairly intriguing and worth investigating. Tomorrow, I’ll explain why I think that if elected (and some of them will indeed be elected) they really won’t change much.
