Dare To Be Strong
I'll respond here to some of the comments left on the last post. When I say I'm going back to D.C. to make a difference, people ask "How?" and "What about the pressure to go along?"
In politics, like life, people are as tough as they choose to be. And it always surprises me that they don't choose to be stronger. By choosing to be strong on core conservative principles, I add value to the team and make life easier for myself. Politicians who have it the roughest are the ones easiest to sway; that's where all the pressure goes, because lobbyists and leaders know their chances of getting movement are best with the weakest members. Strong members, on the other hand, get more respect than pressure.
The members I like best (and who are the best) are the ones who know how to plant their feet. A great example of this is Rep. Stuart Adams (Davis County). I ran a big bill his very first session in the Legislature. We squared off and he stood to challenge my bill. As he spoke, I thought, "You punk . . . you're pretty good, aren't you?" The bill and the process benefitted from his strength and ability. Strength is rewarded with respect.
On the federal level, I think of Senator Bennett standing up for Utah and federalism on No Child Left Behind. That must have been enormous pressure. Is he weaker as a result? Not at all. He showed strength and courage. And he gets the respect and power that flow to a strong and courageous member.
Will I be successful in slowing or reversing the federal government's rapid rate of growth? Time will tell. But wouldn't you like to have someone back there who is at least willing to try and to be held accountable for the results?
In politics, like life, people are as tough as they choose to be. And it always surprises me that they don't choose to be stronger. By choosing to be strong on core conservative principles, I add value to the team and make life easier for myself. Politicians who have it the roughest are the ones easiest to sway; that's where all the pressure goes, because lobbyists and leaders know their chances of getting movement are best with the weakest members. Strong members, on the other hand, get more respect than pressure.
The members I like best (and who are the best) are the ones who know how to plant their feet. A great example of this is Rep. Stuart Adams (Davis County). I ran a big bill his very first session in the Legislature. We squared off and he stood to challenge my bill. As he spoke, I thought, "You punk . . . you're pretty good, aren't you?" The bill and the process benefitted from his strength and ability. Strength is rewarded with respect.
On the federal level, I think of Senator Bennett standing up for Utah and federalism on No Child Left Behind. That must have been enormous pressure. Is he weaker as a result? Not at all. He showed strength and courage. And he gets the respect and power that flow to a strong and courageous member.
Will I be successful in slowing or reversing the federal government's rapid rate of growth? Time will tell. But wouldn't you like to have someone back there who is at least willing to try and to be held accountable for the results?
posted by steve u. at 8/12/2005
Subscribe
9 Comments:
Well said! With so many Republicans content to go with the flow of pork spending, I would welcome a Senator who stood strong behind conservative princples. There is no doubt in my mind that you are that kind of leader.
Go remind our friends in Washington what it means to be a conservative!
President Bush has cut taxes, to his credit.
But President Bush has not cut spending at all -- in fact he has dramatically increased it. While some of the spending increases are justified for the war on terrorism, I think most of the increase in spending under President Bush is not justified.
President Bush needs to listen to Steve's advice, and veto ANY bill that increases spending without decreasing spending else where. Its called "living within your means" -- something normal folk have to do every day.
How about another audioblog report Mr. Senator?
I like to listen to audioblogs as do many people. Podcasting as they say. Hot stuff.
I think a daily audioblog report should be mandatory from all elected officials.
Pick up the phone and tell us what your thoughts are regarding the idea that a daily audioblog report should be mandatory from all elected officials.
I think that would be a good law. What do you think? Let us know via audioblog please.
Thanks for blogging.
Steve, You've got guts but do the people of Utah have anough guts to elect you?
You are campaigning among a people weakened by debt and pork barrel spending. You have to get the voters of Utah to recognize what a dangerous place they have put themselves and urge them to save themselves even at some immediate sacrifice.
Some people regard the ability to be swayed as an asset. They call it "appreciating the complexities of issues." Thanks for pointing out that standing firm on principles is a better way.
Whatever.
If principled Republicans really got the respect you claim they do, then McCain wouldn't be treated like such a leper. Besides Arlen Specter, there is no Republican Senator that does not take his/her marching orders from Rove & Co. I'm sorry, but your heartwarming story about Stewie "Legacy Highway-or-Die" Adams is less than convincing.
I believe that two of the most critical moments in our Country's history were: (1) when General George Washington refused to lead the Country after winning the Revolutionary War, and (2) when President Washington refused to run for a third term, and once again voluntarily relinquished power.
These precedents have blessed our Country for generations -- we have a tradition of power residing with the office, and not with the person, or the personality. Many civil wars have been fought elsewhere over the inability of leaders to know when its time to move on.
Most recently, I have enjoyed seeing Justice O'Connor stepping down from the Supreme Court. She believes it is time to turn power over to the next generation, and is anxious to get involved in projects that will better educate Americans about their civic duties. She didn't want to desparately cling to power until she died.
In sharp contrast, we have no idea when Senator Hatch thinks its time to move on. Will this be his last term? Or will he serve until he dies? I know seniority matters in the Senate, but re-electing an aging Senator for seniority alone is not something that would make our Founding Fathers particularly proud.
Here in Utah, I believe Senator Bennett promised only two terms when he was first elected in 1992, but has already apparently broken that promise. Hatch ran against his opponent in 1976 on a platform that he had been there too long -- in 1976, 18 years was too long.
So, Steve, where do you stand? If elected, would you stay until you died or were not re-elected, or would you commit to a specific number of terms? Or can we trust you to just have the good sense to know when its time to move on?
Nothing you say is legally binding, but I would appreciate your thoughts when you have a chance.
I believe that two of the most critical moments in our Country's history were: (1) when General George Washington refused to lead the Country after winning the Revolutionary War, and (2) when President Washington refused to run for a third term, and once again voluntarily relinquished power.
These precedents have blessed our Country for generations -- we have a tradition of power residing with the office, and not with the person, or the personality. Many civil wars have been fought elsewhere over the inability of leaders to know when its time to move on.
Most recently, I have enjoyed seeing Justice O'Connor stepping down from the Supreme Court. She believes it is time to turn power over to the next generation, and is anxious to get involved in projects that will better educate Americans about their civic duties. She didn't want to desparately cling to power until she died.
In sharp contrast, we have no idea when Senator Hatch thinks its time to move on. Will this be his last term? Or will he serve until he dies? I know seniority matters in the Senate, but re-electing an aging Senator for seniority alone is not something that would make our Founding Fathers particularly proud.
Here in Utah, I believe Senator Bennett promised only two terms when he was first elected in 1992, but has already apparently broken that promise. Hatch ran against his opponent in 1976 on a platform that he had been there too long -- in 1976, 18 years was too long.
So, Steve, where do you stand? If elected, would you stay until you died or were not re-elected, or would you commit to a specific number of terms? Or can we trust you to just have the good sense to know when its time to move on?
Nothing you say is legally binding, but I would appreciate your thoughts when you have a chance.
There are many reasons why you can win, Rep. Urquhart - let's not fest in this environment. Too many people have too many agenda's.
Let's just work delegates with a succinct message....yours.
It will all be good.
No.2.
<< Home