While candidate Mike Lee acted like a senator on the issue of confirming Ben Bernanke for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Bob Bennett acted like a marionette under the control of the mystical wizard of Washington D.C. With a short press release and a predictable vote, our “Senator” Bob Bennett plainly demonstrated the cancerous logic that is rampant among Washington insiders. Here is how he justified his vote to confirm Ben Bernanke:

I reluctantly cast a vote in favor of Ben Bernanke because I do not want to give President Obama the opportunity to put someone who shares his leftist views in charge of the Federal Reserve. I am aware of the mistakes that have been made at the Fed while Chairman Bernanke has been there, but I fear an alternative would be worse for the country’s economic future.

So our elected Marionette is simply trying to save us from having the president nominate someone else. Cute. Perhaps he should have engaged his brain and realized two simple facts – first, if Bernanke was not confirmed by the senate there is little chance that President Obama would have name a more extreme nominee (the natural reaction would be to nominate a safer pick); second, considering the makeup of the Senate (not to mention the final vote tally) opposing Bernanke would have been unlikely to prevent his confirmation but at least it would not have demonstrated approval for his performance (a vote to confirm sends that message more strongly than any press release about your supposed reluctance to cast the vote).

In contrast, Mike Lee (who ought to be replacing Bennett within a year) demonstrated what senatorial advice and consent should look like. Mike issued a statement opposing confirmation for Bernanke and giving solid reasons for that opposition:

“It is clear that during Chairman Bernanke’s term, the Federal Reserve has played a significant role in creating and perpetuating policies and strategies that have contributed significantly to the most difficult economic environment our country has faced in a generation.” Mike Lee continued, “To confirm the Chairman to a second term would be both a tacit approval of his actions during these past few years, and an endorsement that ‘business as usual’ is acceptable. That is something I am simply not willing to do.”

. . .

“Simply replacing Bernanke may not be sufficient, but Chairman Bernanke must be held accountable for the Fed’s actions. It is time to send a clear message that ‘business as usual’ is not acceptable, that transparency is mandatory and that everyone is accountable, now and in the future. This is the first in a series of important steps which must be taken to ensure the integrity and reliability of our monetary system.” (emphasis added)

Bennett failed to demonstrate any responsibility for the senatorial task of advice and consent. Instead he chose to throw up his hands and issue a statement about how sorry he was to vote against the wishes of his constituents and even his own better judgment. Worse yet, he did so on a vote where voting his conscience would not have made a material difference except to be honest about his position.

Almost as soon as the meeting was opened up for comments and questions from those in attendance it became very clear that a majority of the people there were public employees who were not very thrilled with the work that Sen. Liljenquist has been doing to change the pension program for state employees. They expressed their disappointment with the directions he was going and their concerns with the future ramifications of the changes the he is advocating.

He listened calmly over and over but as he spoke it was very evident that he had put a major investment of time and energy to arrive at the best available solution. He politely but decisively explained why the changes were necessary and what he was doing to protect current employees and the fiscal future of the state.

I don’t know if many people at the meeting were swayed as he spoke, but I very much respected how he tackled this difficult issue head on and did not bend to the myopic perspective of some vocal constituents by choosing the irresponsible option of punting the decision to the future.

Because of the recent discussion here about Mike Lee’s stance on the Constitution and his call for a couple of amendments I thought it would be appropriate to share Mike’s post – Why I Focus on the Constitution. I figure it’s always best to let people speak for themselves so here is what I see as the heart of what he wrote:

We must analyze the country’s current challenges and Congress’s proposed solutions through the lens of the Constitution. With such a view, we can accurately determine if the proposed solution incorporates and supports the proper role of government. We must also hold our elected officials accountable to the solemn oaths they have taken to support and defend this document. . . With truly committed constitutional leaders at the helm, we can shift away from a perpetually growing government and the corresponding loss of personal liberty, and instead preserve our freedoms and enjoy the prosperity our great nation affords.

I recommend that anyone who wants to understand Mike and his position in more detail should go read his whole post before trying to engage me in the topic because I don’t claim to know any more about Mike’s position than what he wrote.

1. You are voting in a smaller race so there are fewer voters in any given contest.
2. Municipal elections have the most direct impact on your daily life.
3. Voter turnout is lower so your vote counts for even more among the already small races.

This widespread blogger encouragement to vote is just an example of the last push on election day of what I hope political bloggers can and will do in every election.

After doing some more research I can see that this is not “just in case” money as it first appeared and although the wording of the issue on the ballots is such that they can raise taxes to pay for the bonds they have shown through past performance that they do not desire to raise taxes and very well may be able to pay for the bonds without increasing taxes. Courtesy of that history of their commitment to bond frugally and the fact that there is a need for school infrastructure growth in the district I am willing to support this bond issue.

I like to ask questions to all candidates who would like to represent me in any capacity in order to determine where they stand politically both on specific issues and in their political philosophy in general. I have decided to maintain a list of the basic questions that I will ask the candidates who wish to represent me at the federal level. I plan to ask variations on some of these questions to those who would represent me at other levels of government (city, county, state) and hope that others will feel free to use these questions either directly or as inspiration to ask the candidates who wish to represent them.

I am open to suggestions of what questions need to be asked for candidates at the federal level. One of the things that I will do with each of the questions I post will be to answer the question myself so that my positions on these issues are not hidden and those who are or would be candidates can know where I stand on the issues I will ask them about.

I will also post the answers that I receive from candidates on every election. My intention is that this will be a consistent feature for every election cycle.

I believe that it will lead to the salvation of freedom in America because more people will become better informed about what is really happening in the country.

As a long time blogger that’s a flattering idea, but as someone who has watched many bloggers and much online discussion as a participant and from an academic standpoint I think we need to be careful how much we expect from the impact of citizen journalism. It is an important shift in public discourse, but I think we would be misguided to think that the disappearance of traditional journalism is either necessary or positive. Not long ago I was asked to contribute to an article about the way new media is changing the world of politics. While the reporter did a great job and was kind enough to send me a copy of his story, the paper trimmed the story for publication to meet space requirements and removed all quotes in the article that did not come from elected officials or the person whose experience was meant to illustrate the point. In doing so they removed all reference to what these changes really meant. I’d like to share all the questions I was asked as well as my responses here (which is more than the reporter could have done even if he was so inclined).

What are the benefits of politicians maintaining a blog?

There are many benefits that come from a politician maintaining a blog, both for themselves and for their constituents. The primary benefit is that they can maintain communication with their constituents in a way that they can control (in other words, they are not dependent on space limitations or the biases of an outside news organization). A good blog would enable them to create a firsthand record which they can use to explain or defend themselves from later accusations as opponents may take things out of context and voters often forget the details. (Even the politicians can forget the details without a timely record.)

What are the drawbacks?

The only universal drawback is that it takes time. Also, if the blog allows open responses there is a risk of hecklers and trolls. Not all people are able to deal with those negative elements of such digital communication forums.

How has blogging changed the face of politics for politicians?

I don’t think we really know the full answer to that yet. So far we have been able to see that blogging makes it impossible for anyone (politicians or others) to absolutely control the message that people receive. Blogging makes it so that there are a wider array of information (and misinformation) sources available to everyone so it becomes extremely important to be able to sort through all that information and be able to accurately discard the misinformation. The upside to blogging is that it has very low barriers to entry so politicians can make themselves available as a primary source of information for their constituents more easily than when their only options were media coverage, town hall style meetings, direct mailings, and other less efficient means of communication. Overall I would say that it has had a leveling effect on the political playing field but it also means that it takes even more work to keep on top of the political process.

How has it changed politics for constituents?

See above – there is more information to sort through and constituents must also hone their ability to sort the truth from the garbage, just as their elected officials have the opportunity to become primary sources of information for them they can use blogging to open themselves up as primary sources of information for their elected officials, etc.

I understand you participated in Blogger Press. What do you make of it? What do you see in the future for forums such as this?

I have participated in a couple of blogger press conferences and I think there is great potential there. Bloggers are different from traditional media sources because they do not have the luxury of getting a paycheck for their work. Sometimes this results in better information – often is doesn’t. It virtually always results in a different perspective than is found from professionals in the media industries. I have heard some people argue that bloggers depend on the mainstream media for their information and that they are just acting as a secondary filter. In many cases it’s true, but there are many bloggers who go dig up original information and stories as well. I don’t think that bloggers can or should replace the traditional media, but I do believe that it is very valuable to have the second perspective that bloggers provide alongside the perspectives offered by more traditional news sources. I think there could be a lot of give and take between bloggers and journalists to provide a much richer public discourse than either group could provide alone. I hope to see more blogger press conferences in the future and expect that if that happens we as bloggers, press, politicians, and the public will discover ways that those events can improve our public understanding and dialog around political issues.

My point is that citizen journalism and traditional journalism will best serve society if they complement each other rather than expecting to compete with each other.

How’s that for a ringing endorsement.

Last night I had the opportunity to attend a town hall meeting with my congressional representative, Rob Bishop. I had heard about these meetings from various sources, but this is the first one to take place since I moved into the district. It was an interesting mix of support for Rep. Bishop and confrontation (speaking about the questions and comments from the audience).

One gentleman, who may well have been a tea party attendee, got up and expressed his frustrations at not having a political home after the supposedly conservative Republican party had forsaken the opportunity to promote conservative government. He asked how he could ever trust the party again. Rep. Bishop gave a very unsatisfactory answer (in my mind) that he would just have to sit back and wait. I later talked to that gentleman and invited him to visit my site – I hope he does so. My answer to the question is that those of us who really believe in conservative principles need to get active in the party and make it answerable to those principles rather than blindly following whoever is incumbent. (P.S. Rob Bishop is far from being the worst Republican Incumbent around these parts.) Sitting back and waiting is a great way to allow the status quo to become ever more entrenched in the party and in society.

I found various statements by Bishop which I agreed with and others that I did not agree with. The subject of earmarks came up multiple times and I found some of his answers insightful. For example, Rep. Bishop recognizes that earmarks are easily used as a distraction that diverts attention while the pile of money being spent continues to grow while the size of the pile is a larger problem than the earmarking process. He explained that earmarks are Congress setting priorities for appropriated money rather than the administration setting those priorities. That left me with two questions that I will demand answers on from my congressman.

1. If we get rid of earmarks won’t that allow us to focus on the size of the pile of money?
2. While I might prefer that Congress set the priorities for government appropriations rather than the administration, why should the priorities be set at the federal level at all? (except on truly federal priorities like defense spending) Wouldn’t it be better to just appropriate money to "transportation" and direct that 2% of the money goes to Utah, 5% to California, etc. then let the states and municipalities decide which projects (I-15 expansion, Mountain View Corridor, repaving existing streets, expansion of light rail, to name a few local options) deserve the transportation funding?