Iowa Newspaper InterviewI have an interview tomorrow with a rural Iowa newspaper editor, and he actually sent me a few questions ahead of the call. As long as I’m prepping some ideas, I figured I’d blog about it. Q: With your views, some of which don’t traditionally mix with Republican thinking, do you consider yourself the most diverse candidate for President? Why? Diverse isn’t quite the word I’d pick, but yes, I am trying to represent an alternative to the crowd of candidates maneuvering for ownership of the “conservative” title. I think they miss the point. For me, “conservative” means a restrained philosophy of government; a government that is limited in its intrusions upon the individual. Too many so-called conservatives simply hold conservative social values and wish to see an active government impose those values on the public. My views (fiscal conservative, social libertarian) shouldn’t seem foreign to Republicans; they are based on the Republican creed of respect for the individual, smaller less intrusive government, and personal liberty. However, recently we’ve seen a Republican administration that has grown government dramatically (e.g. No Child Left Behind), infringe our civil liberties (warrant-less wiretaps and mail search policy), and play nanny to consenting adults (online gambling ban). (co-sponsored by Iowa’s own – Rep Jim Leach) All while running up a $9 trillion national debt. That’s $30k for every American – at 5% interest that $1500 per American just to attract investors. Some have called my social positions “liberal.” I don’t support display of the Ten Commandments, I don’t support flag protection or marriage definition amendments, and I think government should avoid telling consenting adults what they can put into, or take out of their bodies. I see these positions as completely consistent with the Party’s professed respect for individual accountability and personal liberty, and these are views that shouldn’t seem alien to attentive Republicans. Sen. Barry Goldwater, at one point the standard-bearer for conservatism, was pro-choice, supported gays in the military, and had little tolerance for the religious right. Barry Goldwater: “A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right.” Q: The Religious Right? I welcome any voter to apply his religious-based values as he participates in our democracy. The values of “do unto others, as you would have done unto you” and “judge not, lest ye be judged” are great models. But religious dogma should have no place in governance. Many in the religious right would create an American Christian theocracy. Any theocracy is oppressive. Our founding fathers fled European theocracies that endowed the monarch with supreme power. It would be an ironic insult to that legacy to create a Christian theocracy, while fighting those would create Muslim theocracies. Back to Barry Goldwater: “There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country.” Q: The Oregon factor. Are you waiting the election out to see how you do in this state’s primary? Are you hoping for a national boost if you can win Oregon? If you do not win Oregon, will you stay in the race? Oregon is late in the primary process (May 20, 2008), so my performance here will have no real impact elsewhere. No, my strategy is more about slipping under the radar and picking up a delegate where nobody is looking. My view is not the dominant view among Republican primary voters, but I do think there are many Republicans who are not comfortable with the dominant view. I’d consider it a success for a novice to simply pick up a delegate of two and represent a different view at the Republican National Convention. I may do some modest campaigning in Iowa and other states, but with limited resources it’s difficult for me to justify the effort. It seems as though Iowa’s caucus system is suited to a candidate who can build a substantial, tangible campaign structure. I’ll probable stick to Oregon, where often the field has been thinned and is only lightly contested. If I can pick up roughly 30,000 votes (about 10%), I should get a delegate. (In 2000, the field had narrowed to just George W Bush and Alan Keyes. I don’t remember a big campaign by Keyes, but he won ~47,000 votes that year.) Q: The War in Iraq. Troop reductions or additions Until about six months ago, I thought a temporary increase of troops might help stabilize the situation in Iraq. I think that opportunity is past. I have a simple mental model for Iraq; is our presence helping or hurting? Are we making life better for the Iraqis, are we making the world a safer place? I believe we are not. Unless I hear a convincing strategy for how we’re going to accomplish a well-defined mission, I don’t support further troops. I’m concerned that the threshold for committing troops to any foreign conflict without a formal declaration of war is too lax. The threat to US interests should be clear, and consensus strong before we put Americans in the line of fire. Previous: The Immediacy of Snail Mail -- Next: The Illusion of Social Security |
Favorite Posts:
Other Blogs:Links:
Feeds - SFP updates for your homepage:Previous Posts: |
