Since my last post, Ken Roberts has, in fact, made a visit to Shoshone County - he spoke at our Republican Central Committee Meeting last night. As such, I must retract the portion of my last post regarding his refusal to visit Shoshone County.
My assessment? If Roberts wins the Primary, I would have no problem supporting him in the general election. He seems like a competent legislator, and his policies seem both socially and fiscally responsible. I can, actually, understand why his fellow Idaho legislators support him. However, in Congress I would envision Roberts as more of a compentent backbencher. No controversy along the lines of Chenoweth or Sali, but not the outspoken advocate for his constituents like Otter or Craig, either. Basically, my impression is that, if he gets in, Roberts would serve a few terms, be on a few non-descript committees, retire, and be a guest speaker at the odd Lincoln Day or State Convention. I think you'd maybe only see his name in the paper a few times during his term, and that would just be to announce a vote or his candidacy for re-election. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I think our district needs more, especially in what may be a liberal House, hostile to natural resource industry. In other words, Roberts seems like a good Idaho State Representative, but the Federal House of Representatives is a whole different ball game.
Vaughn Ward, on the other hand, has a more dominant personality, and has that "smooth" demeanour about him, which would work very well in D.C. He draws a perfect balance in his campaign style - he's not a "used car salesman," but he's not a lawyer/businessman-turned-cowboy either. Obama proved that personality can go a long way in politics and influence, while, unlike Obama, Ward has the credentials to back it up, and his policies are every bit as responsible as Roberts.
So, bottom line - Between the two, I am still behind Ward. But, if Roberts wins the Primary, he would still be 500% better than Minnick.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
First District - Ward v. Roberts
I recently heard a rumour that Ken Roberts is considering dropping out of the First District race. While it would be nice to have an uncontested Republican primary, so that the GOP candidate can focus on defeating Minnick, rather than another Republican, I recently got an e-mail from the Roberts campaign commenting on the healthcare controversy (not sure how I got on his e-mail list, but be that as it may...), plus his website lists his various visits around the State. So, if he's thinking about throwing in the towel, he's keeping it pretty close to the vest for now.
However, I also heard that Roberts has no intentions whatsoever of making a visit to Shoshone County. I hope this is not true, but if it is, he gets a big THUMBS DOWN from me - in fact (again, if it's true), if he gets the nomination, I will seriously consider giving my vote to a third party candidate in November (Minnick's vote to keep giving my tax money to Planned Parenthood cost him my potential vote months ago).
So, until Roberts shows his face over in the Silver Valley, Vaughn Ward has my vote.
However, I also heard that Roberts has no intentions whatsoever of making a visit to Shoshone County. I hope this is not true, but if it is, he gets a big THUMBS DOWN from me - in fact (again, if it's true), if he gets the nomination, I will seriously consider giving my vote to a third party candidate in November (Minnick's vote to keep giving my tax money to Planned Parenthood cost him my potential vote months ago).
So, until Roberts shows his face over in the Silver Valley, Vaughn Ward has my vote.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Ted Kennedy has Died
Apparently, Ted Kennedy has passed away from brain cancer: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TedKennedy/story?id=6692022. Rightfully called the "least talented of the Kennedy brothers," ironically, it was Ted, the youngest, who would die of natural causes. In yet another irony, it was Ted Kennedy's brother-in-law, Sargent Shriver, who was the last pro-life Democrat to be on a national ticket.
While I did not much care for the man and his morals, we can only hope that, in his final days, he was able to make his confession, recant his support of abortion, and make peace for his past indiscretions.
As such, Edward Moore Kennedy: Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Requiescat in pace.
While I did not much care for the man and his morals, we can only hope that, in his final days, he was able to make his confession, recant his support of abortion, and make peace for his past indiscretions.
As such, Edward Moore Kennedy: Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Requiescat in pace.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Concerns with Obama's Healthcare Plan
As I continue to slog my way through the new Encyclical, I just thought I would share something I recently received in an e-mail from the Knights of Columbus.
While, being the "Shoshone Conservative," it may surprise many that I, actually, support healthcare reform, one thing which should be of grave concern to pro-life conservatives is this: http://www.stoptheabortionmandate.com/ If you have a few minutes, I encourage you to listen to the re-play of the webcast. Apparently, there is a possibility that Obama's healthcare plan may lead to taxpayer funded abortion - any fellow pro-life social conservatives who otherwise support alternatives to our current healthcare "system" must vehemently oppose any plan which would result in our paying for such an abonimable practice.
While, being the "Shoshone Conservative," it may surprise many that I, actually, support healthcare reform, one thing which should be of grave concern to pro-life conservatives is this: http://www.stoptheabortionmandate.com/ If you have a few minutes, I encourage you to listen to the re-play of the webcast. Apparently, there is a possibility that Obama's healthcare plan may lead to taxpayer funded abortion - any fellow pro-life social conservatives who otherwise support alternatives to our current healthcare "system" must vehemently oppose any plan which would result in our paying for such an abonimable practice.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Caritas in Veritate - Introduction
In starting to go through the new encyclical, and reading the commentary on the Internet, one over-arching theme of the Pope's critics is that "the Pope shouldn't be getting involved in politics/economics." In anticipation of such criticism, Benedict XVI states in the final paragraph of the introduction:
"The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States." She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation. Without truth, it is easy to fall into an empiricist and sceptical view of life, incapable of rising to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest in grasping the values — sometimes even the meanings — with which to judge and direct it. Fidelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom (cf. Jn 8:32) and of the possibility of integral human development. For this reason the Church searches for truth, proclaims it tirelessly and recognizes it wherever it is manifested. This mission of truth is something that the Church can never renounce. Her social doctrine is a particular dimension of this proclamation: it is a service to the truth which sets us free. Open to the truth, from whichever branch of knowledge it comes, the Church's social doctrine receives it, assembles into a unity the fragments in which it is often found, and mediates it within the constantly changing life-patterns of the society of peoples and nations."
As I go through and comment on the encyclical (and if you choose to read it yourself), please keep this paragraph in mind. I will have more to offer as my schedule allows...
"The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States." She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation. Without truth, it is easy to fall into an empiricist and sceptical view of life, incapable of rising to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest in grasping the values — sometimes even the meanings — with which to judge and direct it. Fidelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom (cf. Jn 8:32) and of the possibility of integral human development. For this reason the Church searches for truth, proclaims it tirelessly and recognizes it wherever it is manifested. This mission of truth is something that the Church can never renounce. Her social doctrine is a particular dimension of this proclamation: it is a service to the truth which sets us free. Open to the truth, from whichever branch of knowledge it comes, the Church's social doctrine receives it, assembles into a unity the fragments in which it is often found, and mediates it within the constantly changing life-patterns of the society of peoples and nations."
As I go through and comment on the encyclical (and if you choose to read it yourself), please keep this paragraph in mind. I will have more to offer as my schedule allows...
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Speaking of Edmund Burke...
While I go through the new Encyclical, here is some food for thought:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041012004931/http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Speeches/1780BurkeBristol.htm
While it is (surprisingly) difficult to locate on the Internet, Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol in 1780 shows the true difference between a politician and a statesman. Could you imagine any modern politician giving a speech like this to his/her constituents?
http://web.archive.org/web/20041012004931/http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Speeches/1780BurkeBristol.htm
While it is (surprisingly) difficult to locate on the Internet, Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol in 1780 shows the true difference between a politician and a statesman. Could you imagine any modern politician giving a speech like this to his/her constituents?
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
New Encyclical
Pope Benedict XVI has issued a new encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html "Caritas in Veritate" or "Charity in Truth." It is some heavy reading, to say the least, but I will post my commentary as I get a chance to go through it. There are some statements on global economic involvement and the UN, which are sure to stir up some controversy in the coming weeks. For a brief summary of the Encyclical, you may look here: http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/c2_en.htm
One thing that is particularly striking, is that Benedict XVI seems to have abandoned the use of the "Royal We," which he had used in his previous letters (i.e., he states "my pontificate," as opposed to the traditional "our pontificate," refers to "my predecessor," rather than "our predecessor," etc.). I wonder if this is a translation error, or if he has, in fact, changed his style of presentation?
One thing that is particularly striking, is that Benedict XVI seems to have abandoned the use of the "Royal We," which he had used in his previous letters (i.e., he states "my pontificate," as opposed to the traditional "our pontificate," refers to "my predecessor," rather than "our predecessor," etc.). I wonder if this is a translation error, or if he has, in fact, changed his style of presentation?
Sunday, July 5, 2009
New Blog Layout
In case you didn't notice, I have added photos to the top "title bar" of the blog. Since I realize not everyone may recognize the photographs, they are: My local Catholic Church, Edmund Burke (father of anglo-American conservatism), and Pope Leo XIII (author of the Encyclical, Rerum Novarum, which forms the basis of Catholic Social Teaching).
An Absolute OUTRAGE!
"Rogue priest asks clergy to push Knights from parishes, exploit insurance policies"
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16441
This "Priest" ought to be defrocked!
(BTW, if you check out "Fr." Farrow's blog now, he has changed the entry in quetsion. See http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=5401203#post5401203)
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16441
This "Priest" ought to be defrocked!
(BTW, if you check out "Fr." Farrow's blog now, he has changed the entry in quetsion. See http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=5401203#post5401203)
First Congressional District - more updates
A few weeks ago, another challenger has emerged for Vaughn Ward in the First Congressional District Primary Race - Ken Roberts, a state legislator from Donnelly (a small town around the Cascade/McCall area).
At this point, Roberts' main disadvantage is that he is an unknown - I, personally, never heard of him until now. There's also talk that he is the man backed by the Ron Paul/libertarian wing of the Party, which is a mixed bag, depending on where you go and to whom you talk.
Looking at his vote-smart bio from his last campaign, http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=32883, he seems pretty active in his local Baptist church, which is sure to help among social conservatives. However, otherwise, his voting record, http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=32883, doesn't seem to shed much light on his positions on the "hot-button" issues voters are interested in, and his refusal to fill out the Vote Smart questionnaire is also somewhat troubling, http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=32883. Furthermore, he side-stepped some important issues in his reponses to the Gem State Voter Guide questionnaire as well: http://www.gemstatevoterguide.com/2008generalraces.asp?raceid=32&racetype=2. Basically, he answers the "safe" questions, laying out a run-of-the-mill Idaho conservative platform, but avoids answering those which could hurt his popularity with one wing or another of the party, which is also cause for concern. See also his answers to the 2000 Vote-Smart questionnaire on the link cited above (tax internet sales, but eliminate, not just reduce but eliminate welfare assistance?? Also note what he didn't answer then, as well).
In sum, Roberts may be a fine, conservative fellow, but the information available about him on the internet, where most voters do their research nowadays (that is, those few voters who do research their candidates) is sketchy, at best. Also, from what I've been able to find, he has not even bothered to set up a website.
Ward, on the other hand, has run a smart campaign, and has made a point of visiting North Idaho on several occasions which, again, is always a plus. His military credentials should also gain him support in this generally conservative district, but, first and foremost, he is a talented speaker and very approachable. He's not the gruff, outspoken ideologue that Sali was, but he is not a "back-slapping used car salesman" either. He's got that smooth, persuasive demeanour about him that has, so far, been lacking in First District Republicans in the past decade or so, and just may be the one who, if elected, could lend some credibility and influence to the Idaho delegation after he has been in office a few terms. Most importantly, I think he is the most likely out of the two to beat Minnick in the general election.
Who do I choose? I'm sure it's obvious from the rest of my post that I am currently leaning toward Ward. However, I will not have made up my mind completely until after the next couple of rounds of Lincoln Days, when I have had a chance to hear, and speak to, the different candidates. Hope everyone's had a happy Independence Day!
At this point, Roberts' main disadvantage is that he is an unknown - I, personally, never heard of him until now. There's also talk that he is the man backed by the Ron Paul/libertarian wing of the Party, which is a mixed bag, depending on where you go and to whom you talk.
Looking at his vote-smart bio from his last campaign, http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=32883, he seems pretty active in his local Baptist church, which is sure to help among social conservatives. However, otherwise, his voting record, http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=32883, doesn't seem to shed much light on his positions on the "hot-button" issues voters are interested in, and his refusal to fill out the Vote Smart questionnaire is also somewhat troubling, http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=32883. Furthermore, he side-stepped some important issues in his reponses to the Gem State Voter Guide questionnaire as well: http://www.gemstatevoterguide.com/2008generalraces.asp?raceid=32&racetype=2. Basically, he answers the "safe" questions, laying out a run-of-the-mill Idaho conservative platform, but avoids answering those which could hurt his popularity with one wing or another of the party, which is also cause for concern. See also his answers to the 2000 Vote-Smart questionnaire on the link cited above (tax internet sales, but eliminate, not just reduce but eliminate welfare assistance?? Also note what he didn't answer then, as well).
In sum, Roberts may be a fine, conservative fellow, but the information available about him on the internet, where most voters do their research nowadays (that is, those few voters who do research their candidates) is sketchy, at best. Also, from what I've been able to find, he has not even bothered to set up a website.
Ward, on the other hand, has run a smart campaign, and has made a point of visiting North Idaho on several occasions which, again, is always a plus. His military credentials should also gain him support in this generally conservative district, but, first and foremost, he is a talented speaker and very approachable. He's not the gruff, outspoken ideologue that Sali was, but he is not a "back-slapping used car salesman" either. He's got that smooth, persuasive demeanour about him that has, so far, been lacking in First District Republicans in the past decade or so, and just may be the one who, if elected, could lend some credibility and influence to the Idaho delegation after he has been in office a few terms. Most importantly, I think he is the most likely out of the two to beat Minnick in the general election.
Who do I choose? I'm sure it's obvious from the rest of my post that I am currently leaning toward Ward. However, I will not have made up my mind completely until after the next couple of rounds of Lincoln Days, when I have had a chance to hear, and speak to, the different candidates. Hope everyone's had a happy Independence Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)