Taxes, Tea & Lee

On April 15 I made a trek up to the Capitol to watch some of the candidates for the U.S. Senate in action during a Tea Party event scheduled that day. Unfortunately I ended up getting my venues mixed for the 10am meeting, but was there for the opening of the Tea Party event on the steps in front of our state's Capitol building.

While waiting for the party to come to me, I had a chance to run into Joe Puente, an Independent candidate for U.S. House of Representatives. He fancies himself as a documentarian and was there to find offensive signs and discredit those in attendance. In my discussion with him I found him to be a fairly nice guy that knows very little about politics and a healthy dose of skepticism for institutions. We had a nice little discussion where I attempted to educate him, and garnered some interest from those surrounding us. In the end, he mentioned that he's working on education proposal and would welcome comments from me. I thought it was a nice gesture, but I haven't taken him up on it yet.

Following that worthwhile exchange I sauntered down the steps to talk with Mike Lee who had just set up shop. I had opportunity to ask some direct questions about departments like the Department of Education and his opinion on Medicare, Social Security and the Federal Reserve. What struck me was the simplicity of his answers. Frequently the response was "gone." I realize that sort of venue doesn't lend itself to more in depth explanations, and it was good to hear these responses said with conviction. However, I suddenly realized that it is in the simplicity of returning to the constitution and increasing state's rights that makes my job as a delegate much harder.

After talking with Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater I've found it difficult to separate them on issues alone. Granted I know a lot more about Tim than Mike and will dig deeper, but on key issues of the day there appears to be very little difference. Ultimately, I've come to the realization that getting to the heart of their understanding of the issues may be a better identifier since there will have to be a series of steps before the worthy Constitutional goals are reached.

As I hung around a little longer a few delegates approached him with questions about his stance on gun control and the War in Afghanistan. I thought he offered a reasonable response to both.

1. Gun Control- Concern was raised over the fact that he doesn't own a gun. In response, he admitted that he only has a BB gun, but that he hunted when he was younger and hasn't found the desire to spend money on a weapon. He mentioned that he supported gun ownership and worked on a group during law school that addressed 2nd Ammendment rights. Ultimately there was no intention expressed to limit the rights of gun owners by additional regulations.
2. Afghanistan- There have been comments over his "cut-and-run" approach to the war in Afghanistan. He took exception to this characterization and offered a pretty balanced approach to war. The heart of his policy appears to be a desire to only engage the military in military objectives. The idea of peacekeeping and other humanitarian functions that the military currently provides is outside the scope of what is constitutionally acceptable. He mentioned that if you're engaged in war that the objectives should be clear, there should be undeviating support for those engaged in the conflict, and that when the mission is completed you should leave.

While providing his views on the military he was asked a question about his view on Reagan's use of the military in Beirut during the 1980's. Clearly he had no idea what happened in Beirut or Reagan's policies, but rather than saying so, he asked the delegate what he felt was wrong with the mission and then he co-opted the delegates response in his assessment. Is this a terrible thing, no. However, it was disappointing to me that he wouldn't say that he didn't know anything about the issue. Given his age and the obscurity of the question it would have been perfectly reasonable to do so, but instinctually he utilized a maneuver to mask any deficiency.

At this point there isn't a lot of depth to my analysis of Mike Lee. I felt like he's on the right side of most all issues at hand, but wasn't able to explore his depth of knowledge to provide a sound critique.