Back to the Issue That Matter
The six bullet points on a resume with a job application are:
“Husband and Father”
“Committed Conservative”
“Pro-Life Leader, Endorsed
by Texas Alliance for Life
Pac”
“Defender of the 2nd
Amendment-- ‘A’ Rating
from the NRA”
“Proud Graduate of Texas
A&M University”
If you assume that this application is for a church pastor’s position, you are wrong. This is ¼ of the top of a one-page vote solicitation from Ryan Sitton. He wants your help in getting him on the November ballot as a candidate for a commissioner’s seat on the Texas Railroad Commission.
He gets around to that in a short paragraph below the bullet points that reads, “But what qualifies him the most to serve as Railroad Commissioner is his experience as an oil and gas engineer who has worked in the energy industry his entire professional career.”
Of the four endorsements on the ad, only two deal exclusively with his qualifications to be a Railroad Commissioner. The other two, both of which are at the top of the endorsements, emphasize his pro-life credentials.
Sitton may be the best qualified person to ever seek a seat on the Railroad Commission. That determination cannot be made, however, from the ad that is the basis of this column.
“Husband and Father” is code-speak that he is not homosexual and is opposed to same sex marriage. Does this mean that homosexuals need not apply?
A “committed conservative” means what today? Is he a Tea Partier? A far right Republican? A middle of the roader who can work with individuals with different views? What is this committed conservative’s opinion on fracking? What does he think about the Keystone Pipeline? What is his position on liquifying natural gas for export?
An overriding concern about this particular type of campaigning is that it is endemic in today’s Republican Party. No matter what office is being sought, the “base” must be wooed first.
The courting involves convincing voters that the candidate is more conservative than his or her opponent. Today, that means the candidate is more opposed to abortion, same sex marriage, and “amnesty” for undocumented visitors than the opponent. Important issues like balanced budgets, elimination of the deficit, freedom from government intrusion in private matters. and similar concerns about Big Brother have to take a seat way back in the campaign.
This type of fratricide over who is the most conservative wrecked the last two Republican presidential campaigns and, because of idiotic statements about abortion by three Republican senatorial candidates, probably kept Republicans from winning control of the Senate.
Capturing the base, as discussed above, controlled the campaigning in the Republican runoff election yesterday. There was also the usual mix of character assassination of opponents. Discussions of real issues were rare.
Wehby told a GOP forum that she was personally pro-life but did not want the government involved in a woman's decision on whether to have an abortion. She believes that abortion is a personal decision.
Her pro-choice stance did not keep her from out polling four other Republican candidates. Her opponents included a state representative and a former Republican county chair, one of whom was endorsed by the Oregon Right to Life organization.
Current polls indicate that she has an excellent chance of winning the general election in November to take the seat of Democrat Senator Jeff Merkley
But win she did, even over allegations that she had “stalked” two former boyfriends.
So here’s the perspective.
Maybe Dr. Wehby will teach them that they can win without the open support of the “base.” By following in the doctor’s footsteps, they may learn that a discussion of real issues attracts more independents and “moderate” Republicans.
Those independents and moderates will more than offset the ultra conservative Republicans upset because there is no “conservative” candidate. The ultra conservatives may stay away from the polls, but they will not even think of voting for a Democrat.
Let’s get back to the issues that matter.
enough
