Thursday, May 18, 2006

John Jacob Notgonnagetmyvote Schmidt

I was quite surprised by the anti-anti John Jacob reaction that my last post got. Seeing as how that was more of a light-hearted look at the convention and immediate reactions, for those of you who decided to come back and/or stick around I have some substantive criticism of John Jacob for you and the ultimate reasons why I didn't and won't be voting for him. I don't think anything will be of the soundbyte quality that my comments on the unofficial Jacob campaign theme song were (thanks to Utah Policy for grabbing that!), but it will be fairly comprehensive. I know that there will be people out there who will disagree with me (seeing as how there were 1100 3rd District delegates, at least 600 will), but these are serious concerns that everyone who will be voting in the primary ought to at least think about.
1. John Jacob is not well versed on policy issues and he hasn't shown the desire to get deep into policy. Exhibit A is his website, where he has lots of platitudes and nice thoughts, but he doesn't have any ideas about what to do about those issues he mentions. Sure it's great to obey our laws on immigration, but you are part of that lawmaking body if you get elected. What would you have the law be? Saying that we should obey the law is an easy way out of a very complicated issue. He's said that he's both for and against the Anchor Baby interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He told Brett Tatton, a delegate who is strongly against illegal immigration, that he was pro-Anchor Baby and anti-Tom Tancredo (a noted and ardent opponent of illegal immigration). Then he changed his mind as a result of delegate pressure. For someone who is supposed to take those stands and say "here's why I voted for X, Y, or Z" that's pretty weak, especially since he's never said why he changed his tune. Another example is from one of my precinct chairs. He asked Jacob at an event about the trade deficit. Jacob made a glib comment and moved on. He asked the same question at an event a week later, thinking that perhaps Jacob would have looked into it and got the same response. Another example from his website is on national security. He says the greatest threat to our security is from the inside, which seems to me to imply that by giving too much to the President then we are destroying ourselves. It's actually a pretty good argument and one that the Left has deployed in a number of situations. At the same time it's because of outside influences that we'll be destroyed. I assume he's talking about the UN, but again he has no concrete examples, just generalizations. Are you for or against NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, the UN, NATO, GATT, FTAA, and other multilateral agreements? Tell me, don't just paint everything with the same brush. On taxation and spending, will you agree to unilaterally eliminate any and all earmarks for Utah and/or Utah's 3rd District? Do you support Paygo? Why are you telling me about the widow's mite? After all, she gave that to Jesus. Does that mean that we should give our all to the government? Finally on governmental interference, you say that the Feds held up our roads and wasted our money. Because we earmarked money for that from the government and because it's they hold the strings to that, how is that not fair? I thought you wanted less taxes anyway, which would have completely eliminated those road projects that were funded through the earmark process.
2. His positions aren't in line with mine. While that shouldn't concern everyone who isn't me, I think that he's wrong in his current position on immigration and that he paints everything with too broad a brush in other areas. He needs to get down and specific about exactly what he would do or work to do on these other issues. He's too much of a wild card to send at this point in time.
3. That blasted song!

7 comments:

DMTS said...

Even Jacobs admitted publicly that he did not understand the issues, nor the role of government entities nearly as well as Cannon. It was in the debate between him, Cannon, and Cook before the convention that was held at the Noni building and was in reponse to a direct question to expand on his understanding of the WTO.

John is a likeable personality...but during these tough times I don't want someone who is having to learn what's where and who's what.

Becky said...

AMEN! I have been supprized as I have spoken to Jacob supporters. Their main draw is that they do not like Cannon. That is a poor reason to vote for a candidate. I worry about the immigration hype and that the conservative populace is behaving too reactionary. As a result they are willing to send an unknown to fill a seat in congress. Immigration is a problem, but our law makers tend to create a bigger problem when in panic mode. I have felt that Jacob has been more interested in running a nice, feel good campaign that running for a national office, too much fluf and not enough substance. Voters must vote for something, not against someone and Jacob lacks that something needed for a congressman.

Five O' Clock Somewhere said...

Well, I think you might want to end your comments with “Paid for and authorized by Committee to Elect Chris Cannon,” After all truth in advertising. If you want to talk lack of substance then Congressman Cannon’s convention video and speech take the cake. Wow! Chris I had no idea that you could not ride or handle a horse. Also I thought Rocky Anderson was the only Utah politician who could flip flop on and issue, then tell us straight to our face “you know where I stand. So where is it Chris? Are you for or against amnesty for illegals? Because if I look at your voting record you are for it. And if I Google Chris Cannon and amnesty I find numerous stories about you in support of the idea. So is Chris changing “His Tune”?

And is Chris Cannon for or against getting the federal government out of our schools? If so then why did he vote for No Child left behind? But then again he did create www.endfeded.com. After all what good does it really do to educate a child?

As for a Chris Cannon theme songs… My pick would be Yesterday by the Beatles. With some slightly altered lyrics.

Yesterday…all Chris Cannon’s troubles seemed so far away, now it looks as though there here to say. Oh Chris believes in yesterday….

Amnesty… Chris wishes he could just give it away. And keep all the people working for less pay, then maybe they’ll be here to stay…Oh Chris believes is Amnesty…

Bureaucracy… Always keeps things running so effectively…I glad they handle airport security… Let’s let them oversee catastrophes …Oh Chris believes in bureaucracy…

Sorro said...

5:00, if you want to believe that I'm a paid vassal of the Cannon for Congress campaign, that's your perogative. If you look at my blog (and not just this post), you'll see that that isn't the case, mainly because most of my posts have nothing to do with Cannon. I think he's an honorable man and I think that he understands politics and policy. He does believe in a type of amnesty, but he has mellowed his views due to constituent's wishes. From what I've talked with him about he is for getting the federal government out of schools, and to toss in that therefore he's against all education is an unsubstantiated, low blow. He voted for NCLB because of the President's wishes and because he thought that it would be a step that would lead to that happening (which it actually has). I'll post a bit on why I'm voting for Mr Cannon in a future blog, but for now I have to say that you sound like someone who is more ABC (Anybody But Cannon) than pro-Jacob.

Kyal2k said...

Good statements about Jacobs. I have seen his statements increasingly pan to what he perceives are delegate views. I'm not quite sure what to make of him. He is running a somewhat feel-good campaign, but has nonetheless attacked the immigration positions of Cannon (though Mr. Cook did even more so). I don't have a good gut feeling about him, not sure why, just don't.

If you do vote for Jacob just to NOT vote for Hatch without learning what he stands for, it's no better than voting for Kerrey because he's not Bush.

patrick said...

This race is one of those unusual 'send a message' races where it is actually possible to save the GOP leadership in Washington from themselves.

The Senate immigration bill is the worst bill passed by that body in 20 years. A core components of that awful bill is something called AgJobs. The Senate bill builds on AgJobs provisions to legalize millions of illegal immigrants into citizens, and creates a whole category of larger legal immigration that, combined would lead to tens of millions in added immigration in the next 20 years (estimates are between 40 and 60 million).

There is no doubt that, with Rep Cannon as a co-sponsor with Berman, Kennedy and Craig of AgJobs, these 4 votes would be for the Senate CIRA bill or something very much like it. Craig was one of the GOP Senators who joined Kennedy in voting for the Senate CIRA bill. If the same vote were held on the House side, Cannon would be a vote for it as well.

Cannon may be good on other issues, but how can you vote in the primary for someone who is willing to support the worst bill passed in Congress in 20 years?

BTW, I dont see a problem with a candidate who does what's in the interests of the voters/Republican activists. I see a problem if the candidate is pandering to special interests.

patrick said...

The bottom-line: Vote for Jacobs and defeat Cannon, and we end the GOP's Hispandering for amnesty, and save the GOP leadership from waling Lemming-like off the cliff for this Senate legalization/amnesty bill.