For those considering a limited government approach to their Congressional district 2 candidates, a short trip across the internet, I like to call it Bass Fishing in this instance, can be very revealing. 

But before I share the results, let me preface by saying this.  This is about Charlie Bass’ actual voting record, not Charlie Bass.  And I think the Record speaks for itself.

Life? Charlie’s voting Record favors human embryonic stem cell research, and would not prohibit cloning for that purpose.  It also would not prohibit the transport of minors across state lines for abortions.  Charlie’s Record is pro-abortion except for partial birth abortions, and yet NARAL calls him pro-choice.  Pro Choice?  As in, how does your underage daughters “favorite” “uncle” choose which state line to take her across to get that abortion with the gift certificate she got for Christmas from Planned Parenthood?

Next up, energy.  Mr. Bass’ Record is not a big fan of domestic energy or of local control of how energy is used.  His Record favored passing the Kyoto protocol and (presumably) all the fun and so far useless but economy crushing restrictions that would come with it.  (No word on how he feels about it now that the wheels continue to come off the AGW bus).  Mr. Bass Record was also against domestic drilling, and offshore drilling.  But in a fit of contradiction, the Record did favor more refineries. To refine more and more oil we had to buy from foreign countries, I have to assume.  Given these facts it is not a stretch to imagine him supporting more ethanol subsidies, the wind farm boondoggles, and the green jobs myth.  But being pro-refinery we can expect that in that event the environmentalists would brand him anti-environmental.

Charlie’s Record did not like the idea of Photo I.D.’s for national elections, and wanted to restrict independent grass roots political action committees.  The Record also favored Mc Cain/Feingold which restricted campaign speech by assuming money had nothing to do with political speech.  But anyone who has ever tried to effectively communicate political speech to a large number of people (without the gobs of out of state money the NHDP has at hand to lie about its’ candidates) knows that it is impossible to do it effectively without bags of money, and that it is critically important to do it right up to election day, not some date chosen at random by entrenched incumbents who could stand to benefit from the speech restrictions prohibited by the first amendment.   

Your money?  Charlie’s Record spent an awful lot of your money.  So much of it, that even tax and spend liberals looked like a better deal.  Talk about an expensive mistake.  Those tax and spend liberals tripled the spending from Charlie’s Record.  So is his Record running in 2010 to get us back to the more responsible pre-2007 profligate republican spending, or some other variety?

Now to be fair, Charlie’s Record got some things right.  It did well on national defense and immigration.  It also did well on tax cuts, and eliminating things like the marriage penalty, estate taxes, and taxes on capitol gains.  It did supporting working to keep families together if in fact the smallest unit of ‘family’ managed to survive his stance on abortion, and if they were gay married families, and if those are things you happen to think the government can or should even actually be involved in.

But on the whole, the Record is not exactly as conservative as we might like, or as much as some moderates would have you believe.   Charlie is to the left on life, on spending, on energy, and on the environment—which makes him in favor of big government to a degree that should frighten almost anyone who is offended by the current course of government.  His stance on campaign finance is myopic and unconstitutional unless you jump through hoops the founders never erected but warned us about.  Charlie’s Record does not appear to have taken issue with earmarking which in 2005 set a new world record, beaten only recently by congressional democrats in 2009.   And the Bass Record’s continues associations with groups like Republican Main Street and GOP Choice, show he has not drifted away from his moderate stances. 

So he’s a Blue Dog Republican.  Plain and simple.  And that’s fine if that’s what you want.   And I encourage you to defend these stands, and support your candidate.  I’m sure there is a perfectly good explanation for them.  But if you can’t, maybe you are supporting the wrong kind of Republican. Particularly in the current political climate. 

Now this does not mean that Charlie’s Record can’t have had an epiphany.  With age comes wisdom.  But right when the power of the ‘Just like Bush’ rhetoric seems to have lost its ability to drive opposition to republicans, is resurrecting the real thing the best we can do?  Shouldn’t we be taking this historic opportunity to refresh the kind of legislators we have in DC instead of recycling the old ones?

Sure he can raise money.  Yes, he’s beloved by the Fergus Cullen/Rich Ashooh moderate establishment Republicans who helped trash the brand and banish us from power in every state office. (His top 2006 campaign contributor was BAE, if that matters, and I should because we know what a dead weight moderate Ashooh is.) So shouldn’t those be negatives in this political climate?  Can Charlie successfully separate himself from his record?  Does he even want to?  And if not, why would anyone complain about my airing it out in public?  

I suppose only time will tell.   For now, Charlie’s Record has a lot of explaining to do to small government, pro-liberty independents, and the bulk of a growing conservative movement, all of whom have shifted the political landscape enough that anyone with a fever for the flavor of a congressional seat is putting their big toe in the water.  But if they are as informed as they claim to be, how can Charlie’s record still stand a chance?

Links

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Charlie_Bass.htm 

http://www.gopchoice.org/chapter_affiliate.asp 

http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/ 

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000423&cycle=2006