Grassroots
voters have had their fill of politicians’ pat answers, designed to soft-peddle
important issues or patronize their constituents. We encourage all “average
citizens” to keep asking tough questions to seriously vet their potential
political employees…and to really listen to their answers. Many times, you’ll
be disappointed. But you may just be pleasantly surprised by something that
sounds like actual leadership. A Steve Deace listener named Jacob Hall
submitted this real-life example of a U.S. Senate candidate who answered a controversial
question in a way that won Hall’s vote…and set a high standard for other
candidates to meet.
Guest Editorial
by Jacob Hall
Anyone who has
ever asked a question at a political candidate’s event knows how important the
answer is. Often times that answer eliminates a candidate from consideration,
or at least that’s how it has gone in my experiences. But every once in a while
a candidate includes so much truth in his or her answer that in one answer they
earn your vote.
That happened Friday.
Dr. Sam Clovis, one of the Republican
candidates for the United States Senate in Iowa, made a stop at Casey’s Bakery
in Sioux Center. I asked Dr. Clovis what his thoughts were about Arizona Gov.
Jan Brewer vetoing the religious freedom legislation earlier in the week.
Knowing my
question was not really specific, I expected a typical politician’s answer that
dodges and doesn’t directly address the issue. Instead I got a ton of red meat
for a Christian.
“I really think
that Jan Brewer’s decision was spawned of weakness,” Clovis said. “The notion
is she could’ve done that and stood up for something that I think is very
important.”
Clearly,
Republican or not, Clovis didn’t care. He believed what Brewer did was wrong
and he had no problem letting us know. Then he continued…
“The LGBT
marriage issue stands out as a stalking horse,” he said. “It’s not about
(marriage). It’s about obtaining 14th Amendment protections for
people who engage in those behaviors. That to me is really dangerous and it’s a
very slippery slope. If we allow that to take place, then this means that
suddenly a minister or a priest who stands up at the pulpit and is giving a
homily or a sermon suddenly could be accused of hate speech because the people
in that lifestyle are protected.”
By now, the
tracker who the Iowa Democratic Party paid to follow Clovis was busily taking
notes. Clovis didn’t care.
“We have six
protected classes in America, two of them deal with religion and military
service,” he said. “Those are long-standing traditions in our country, we were
founded on this notion. The other four deal with primary characteristics,
things you can see most of the time. Those deal with disabilities, age, gender
and race. Those are things you can see. I think (the science) is still out on
this, but as far as we know, (LGBT behavior) is a choice they make. So we’re
being asked to provide Constitutional protections for behavior, a choice in
behavior as opposed to a primary characteristic.”
I’m starting to
wonder at this point if the tracker from the Democrats is going to develop
carpel tunnel from this one answer alone. But Clovis doubled down. No, he
tripled down.
“Follow the
logic, if you engage in a particular behavior, what also becomes protected?” he
asked. “If we protect LGBT behavior, what other behaviors are we going to
protect? Are we going to protect pedophilia? Are we going to protect
polyamorous marriage relationships? Are we going to protect fetishes? What’s
the logical extension of this? It can’t be that we’re going to protect LGBT and
then we’ll pull up the ladder. That’s not going to happen, it defies logic.
We’re not thinking the consequences of these decisions through.”
OK, at this
point I don’t know who needs a cigarette more, me or the tracker for the
Democrats. Clovis talked about how we’re considering giving Constitutional
protections to just four percent of the population for a choice in behavior. He
noted 16 percent of the population is left-handed and rhetorically asked who
had been put on more than left-handed people since the whole world seems
right-handed.
“I’m making an
absurd point to prove a point,” he said (I kind of doubt the tracker for the
Democrats will include that part of his answer). “I think the protection of
religion is fundamental, it’s primary and it’s the No. 1 issue we have.”
While the
Democrats, and likely some Republicans will think it’s extreme that Clovis
cited the slippery slope, it was pointed out that many renowned professors are
already claiming pedophilia to be an orientation. Although they’re not all
calling it pedophilia, it’s now being referred to as minor-attracted.
“I don’t think
it’s extreme,” Clovis said. “I think it is a logical extension of thought. If
you cannot follow the logic, then you’re in denial.”
Dr. Clovis
spoke for more than an hour, but all that other stuff was just mumbo-jumbo
compared to his answer to one question. Not only did it prove there is someone
running who is willing to tell us the truth, but he leads me to think he’ll be
ready to fight for it as well.
Dr. Clovis has
my vote after that answer. He did eventually duck one of my questions later,
but his smile after I asked it made me feel warm inside. I asked…
“When Matt
Bevin beats Mitch McConnell, who are you going to vote for leader of the
Republicans in the U.S. Senate?”
His smile
assured me he knows what’s happening not just in Iowa, but around the country.
He understands the problem we face not only as a country, but also as a party.
He’s ready to be the next U.S. Senator from Iowa.
How
will your state’s candidates answer this question? There’s only one way to find
out.
Source: Steve Deace, March 5, 2014, Sondra Childs-Smith posted in Republican
Liberty Caucus from: http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/how-to-win-votes-and-influence-elections/
No comments:
Post a Comment